Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 741

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Virus taxonomy in the age of metagenomics

Open access
Simmonds, Peter, Adams, Mike J., Benkő, Mária, Breitbart, Mya, Brister, J. Rodney, Carstens, Eric B., Davison, Andrew J., Delwart, Eric, Gorbalenya, Alexander E., Harrach, Balázs, Hull, Roger, King, Andrew M.Q., Koonin, Eugene V., Krupovic, Mart, Kuhn, Jens H., Lefkowitz, Elliot J., Nibert, Max L., Orton, Richard, Roossinck, Marilyn J., Sabanadzovic, Sead, Sullivan, Matthew B., Suttle, Curtis A., Tesh, Robert B., van der Vlugt, René A., Varsani, Arvind, Zerbini, F. Murilo·2017·Nature Reviews Microbiology

Abstract

Although viral sequences are important in taxonomy, classification has typically also required biological properties, thus excluding viruses that were identified by metagenomics. The proposals in this Consensus Statement, which are supported by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV), enable viruses that are discovered by sequence alone to be incorporated into virus classification. The number and diversity of viral sequences that are identified in metagenomic data far exceeds that of experimentally characterized virus isolates. In a recent workshop, a panel of experts discussed the proposal that, with appropriate quality control, viruses that are known only from metagenomic data can, and should be, incorporated into the official classification scheme of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV). Although a taxonomy that is based on metagenomic sequence data alone represents a substantial departure from the traditional reliance on phenotypic properties, the development of a robust framework for sequence-based virus taxonomy is indispensable for the comprehensive characterization of the global virome. In this Consensus Statement article, we consider the rationale for why metagenomic sequence data should, and how it can, be incorporated into the ICTV taxonomy, and present proposals that have been endorsed by the Executive Committee of the ICTV.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nrmicro.2016.177

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 741

Metadata

Authors
Simmonds, P., Adams, M. J., Benkő, M., Breitbart, M., Brister, J. R., Carstens, E. B., Davison, A. J., Delwart, E., Gorbalenya, A. E., Harrach, B., Hull, R., King, A. M. Q., Koonin, E. V., Krupovic, M., Kuhn, J. H., Lefkowitz, E. J., Nibert, M. L., Orton, R., Roossinck, M. J., Sabanadzovic, S., Sullivan, M. B., Suttle, C. A., Tesh, R. B., van der Vlugt, R. A., Varsani, A., & Zerbini, F. M.
Venue
Nature Reviews Microbiology
Published
2017-01-03
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
161-168
ISSN
  • 1740-1526 (ISSN-L)
  • 1740-1534
OpenAlex
W2562468253
Cited by
741
References
4
FWCI
7.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Virus taxonomy in the age of metagenomics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/nrmicro.2016.177
The paper
Simmonds, P., Adams, M. J., Benkő, M., Breitbart, M., Brister, J. R., Carstens, E. B., Davison, A. J., Delwart, E., Gorbalenya, A. E., Harrach, B., Hull, R., King, A. M. Q., Koonin, E. V., Krupovic, M., Kuhn, J. H., Lefkowitz, E. J., Nibert, M. L., Orton, R., Roossinck, M. J., . . . Zerbini, F. M. (2017). Virus taxonomy in the age of metagenomics. Nature Reviews Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2016.177

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.