Integridade na pesquisa: ética profissional dos cientistas - O papel do Comitê de Integridade na Pesquisa do Instituto Adolfo Lutz / Research integrity: professional ethics of scientists - The role of the Research Integrity Committee at the Adolfo Lutz Institute

O Comitê de Integridade na Pesquisa do Instituto Adolfo Lutz (CIPIAL), com o objetivo de promover a cultura da integridade científica como um dos valores fundamentais defendidos pela instituição nas suas atividades de pesquisa, considera relevante compartilhar com a comunidade científica a sua implantação, destacando o seu papel no gerenciamento deste tema na instituição. Após a publicação de seu regimento, de acordo com as suas competências primordiais, o CIPIAL elaborou e publicou o Código de Boas Práticas Científicas do IAL com o objetivo de definir as políticas de integridade para orientar os profissionais envolvidos com a pesquisa. (AU)

The Research Integrity Committee of the Adolfo Lutz Institute (CIPIAL), with the aim of promoting the culture of scientific integrity as one of the fundamental values defended by the institution in its research activities, considers it relevant to share its implementation with the scientific community, highlighting its role in managing this issue at the institution. Following the publication of its rules and regulations, in accordance with its core competencies, CIPIAL drew up and published the IAL Code of Good Scientific Practice with the aim of defining integrity policies to guide professionals involved in research. (AU)

Safety and immunogenicity of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac) in inadvertently vaccinated healthy children.

Twenty-seven children aged seven months to 5 years were inadvertently vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine, the CoronaVac (Sinovac, China), an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, in two different cities of Sao Paulo State, Brazil. After the event, these children were monitored by local pediatricians and serum samples were collected at the first visit and 30 days after vaccination and tested for SARS-CoV-2 S1 serology with Ortho total IgG anti-S1 protein and Cpass, an ACE2 receptor binding domain inhibition assay. Only one child had a mild symptom after vaccination, with no other adverse events documented up to the 30 days follow-up. Of 27 children tested 3-9 days after vaccination, 5 (19%) had positive serology suggesting a previous natural SARS-CoV-2 infection, with all 19 tested on day 30 after vaccination and presenting with positive tests, with an increment of antibody titers in those initially positive. A low Cpass binding inhibition was observed in the first collection in 11 seronegative cases, with high titers among those anti-S1 positive. All children showed an important increase in antibody titers on day 30. The event allowed the documentation of a robust serological response to one dose of CoronaVac in this small population of young children, with no major adverse effects. Although it was an unfortunate accident, this event may contribute with future vaccine strategies in this age group. The data suggest that CoronaVac is safe and immunogenic for children.

Discrepancies of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase resistance interpretation of insertions and deletions between two genotypic algorithms.

BACKGROUND: Bioinformatics algorithms have been developed for the interpretation of resistance from sequence submission, which supports clinical decision making. This study evaluated divergences of the interpretation of the genotyping in two commonly used algorithms, using sequences with indels of reverse transcriptase genes. METHODS: Sequences were obtained from virus RNA of patients failing highly active antiretroviral therapy from 2004 to 2011. Alignments were obtained using Clustal W including subtype B consensus and HXB2. Sequences with evidence of indels were submitted to the Stanford Resistance Database and to the Geno2Pheno to locate indel positioning and determine the resistance profile. RESULTS: A total of 1,959 partial reverse transcriptase sequences were assessed, mostly subtype B (74%). Insertions and deletions were observed in 0.9 and 0.6% of sequences, respectively. Discordant insert positioning was assigned for most (90%) insertion sequences, with 27% discordances for deletions. Susceptibility differed for some antiretroviral drugs, predominantly for TDF, d4T and ETV, when sequences with deletions were evaluated. CONCLUSION: Both indel positioning and its impact on drug susceptibility varies depending on the algorithm, a fact that might influence the clinical decision. Critical analysis of indel sequences with manual alignments is important, and its use alongside different algorithms may be important to better understand the outcomes of genotypic resistance prediction.