Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 624

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Serotype Diversity and Reassortment between Human and Animal Rotavirus Strains: Implications for Rotavirus Vaccine Programs

Gentsch, Jon R., Laird, Ashley R., Bielfelt, Brittany, Griffin, Dixie D., Bányai, Krisztián, Ramachandran, Madhu, Jain, Vivek, Cunliffe, Nigel A., Nakagomi, Osamu, Kirkwood, Carl D., Fischer, Thea K., Parashar, Umesh D., Bresee, Joseph S., Jiang, Baoming, Glass, Roger I.·2005·The Journal of Infectious Diseases

Abstract

The development of rotavirus vaccines that are based on heterotypic or serotype-specific immunity has prompted many countries to establish programs to assess the disease burden associated with rotavirus infection and the distribution of rotavirus strains. Strain surveillance helps to determine whether the most prevalent local strains are likely to be covered by the serotype antigens found in current vaccines. After introduction of a vaccine, this surveillance could detect which strains might not be covered by the vaccine. Almost 2 decades ago, studies demonstrated that 4 globally common rotavirus serotypes (G1-G4) represent >90% of the rotavirus strains in circulation. Subsequently, these 4 serotypes were used in the development of reassortant vaccines predicated on serotype-specific immunity. More recently, the application of reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction genotyping, nucleotide sequencing, and antigenic characterization methods has confirmed the importance of the 4 globally common types, but a much greater strain diversity has also been identified (we now recognize strains with at least 42 P-G combinations). These studies also identified globally (G9) or regionally (G5, G8, and P2A[6]) common serotype antigens not covered by the reassortant vaccines that have undergone efficacy trials. The enormous diversity and capacity of human rotaviruses for change suggest that rotavirus vaccines must provide good heterotypic protection to be optimally effective.

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 · 10.1086/431499

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 624

Metadata

Authors
Gentsch, J. R., Laird, A. R., Bielfelt, B., Griffin, D. D., Bányai, K., Ramachandran, M., Jain, V., Cunliffe, N. A., Nakagomi, O., Kirkwood, C. D., Fischer, T. K., Parashar, U. D., Bresee, J. S., Jiang, B., & Glass, R. I.
Venue
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
Published
2005-09
Volume
192
Issue
s1
Pages
S146-S159
ISSN
  • 0022-1899 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6613
OpenAlex
W2027227419
Cited by
624
References
0
FWCI
19.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Serotype Diversity and Reassortment between Human and Animal Rotavirus Strains: Implications for Rotavirus Vaccine Programs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/431499
The paper
Gentsch, J. R., Laird, A. R., Bielfelt, B., Griffin, D. D., Bányai, K., Ramachandran, M., Jain, V., Cunliffe, N. A., Nakagomi, O., Kirkwood, C. D., Fischer, T. K., Parashar, U. D., Bresee, J. S., Jiang, B., & Glass, R. I. (2005). Serotype Diversity and Reassortment between Human and Animal Rotavirus Strains: Implications for Rotavirus Vaccine Programs. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1086/431499

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.