Structured PREreview of Protective non-neutralizing mAbs Ab94 and Ab81 retain high-affinity and potent Fc-mediated function against SARS-CoV-2 variants from Omicron to XBB1.5

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

The introduction talked about the prevalence of Covid, its different variants, and introduced the experiments of using non neutralizing antibodies, and how it may serve as an effective therapeutic for different SARS-Cov-2 variants

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Highly appropriate

They have appropriate methods on cell culture and antibody production before running any experiments, and they also have very clear specifications for lot numbers of equipment and the source/company of all of necessary items to have run their experiments.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Somewhat supported

They provide reasonable interpretation of the data, assuming that the data is correct. And they don't concretely say that nnAbs are effective for therapies against different SARS-Cov-2 variants but clarify that their data suggests potential candidates for future therapeutics

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Somewhat appropriate and clear

Though their data was clear and seems reasonable to me, they did not have mice models for the newer variants during their paper even though they saw good results for Wuhan strains. Considering that this paper looks at non-neutralizing antibodies as potential therapeutics for current and future strains, I feel as if it would have been most effective to test mice with newer SARS-Cov-2 strains as well

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Somewhat clearly

They provide clarity and admit to limitations in their studies and what is expected in future directions of their studies. However their talk of previous work they've done and how their findings change what is already known about SARS-Cov-2 non-neutralizing antibodies is slightly unclear but that could also be due to the fact that I am definitely no expert on the subject

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Moderately likely

Though this paper is relevant in that there is a necessity for some change to have continuing effective vaccines as the strains keep changing, the data and conclusions did not seem completely novel. If anything, it was confirmation of previously established findings on non neutralizing antibodies for SARS-Cov-2.

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

The paper did not have issues in the way it read. It was clear and was relatively easy to understand.

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

The paper seems almost incomplete, if anything I think there should be inclusion of in vivo work for the mice of newer SARS-Cov-2 variant strains instead of the oldest Wuhan strains. I think that would make the paper more relevant and helpful for potential new therapeutics for SARS-Cov-2

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, after minor changes

Like in the previous question, I firmly believe this paper needs more data such as in vivo work of the newer SARS-Cov-2 strains

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.