The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparative Analysis of Twelve Genomes of Three Novel Group 2c and Group 2d Coronaviruses Reveals Unique Group and Subgroup Features
Open accessAbstract
Twelve complete genomes of three novel coronaviruses—bat coronavirus HKU4 (bat-CoV HKU4), bat-CoV HKU5 (putative group 2c), and bat-CoV HKU9 (putative group 2d)—were sequenced. Comparative genome analysis showed that the various open reading frames (ORFs) of the genomes of the three coronaviruses had significantly higher amino acid identities to those of other group 2 coronaviruses than group 1 and 3 coronaviruses. Phylogenetic trees constructed using chymotrypsin-like protease, RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, helicase, spike, and nucleocapsid all showed that the group 2a and 2b and putative group 2c and 2d coronaviruses are more closely related to each other than to group 1 and 3 coronaviruses. Unique genomic features distinguishing between these four subgroups, including the number of papain-like proteases, the presence or absence of hemagglutinin esterase, small ORFs between the membrane and nucleocapsid genes and ORFs (NS7a and NS7b), bulged stem-loop and pseudoknot structures downstream of the nucleocapsid gene, transcription regulatory sequence, and ribosomal recognition signal for the envelope gene, were also observed. This is the first time that NS7a and NS7b downstream of the nucleocapsid gene has been found in a group 2 coronavirus. The high Ka/Ks ratio of NS7a and NS7b in bat-CoV HKU9 implies that these two group 2d-specific genes are under high selective pressure and hence are rapidly evolving. The four subgroups of group 2 coronaviruses probably originated from a common ancestor. Further molecular epidemiological studies on coronaviruses in the bats of other countries, as well as in other animals, and complete genome sequencing will shed more light on coronavirus diversity and their evolutionary histories.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Bat origin of human coronaviruses
Hu, B., Ge, X., Wang, L.-F., & Shi, Z. (2015) · Virology Journal · doi:10.1186/s12985-015-0422-1 · Cited by 344
MERS-CoV spike protein: a key target for antivirals
Du, L., Yang, Y., Zhou, Y., Lu, L., Li, F., & Jiang, S. (2017) · Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets · doi:10.1080/14728222.2017.1271415 · Cited by 301
Proteomics Analysis Unravels the Functional Repertoire of Coronavirus Nonstructural Protein 3
Neuman, B. W., Joseph, J. S., Saikatendu, K. S., Serrano, P., Chatterjee, A., Johnson, M. A., Liao, L., Klaus, J. P., Yates, J. R., Wüthrich, K., et al. (2008) · Journal of Virology · doi:10.1128/jvi.02631-07 · Cited by 192
Emergence of bat-related betacoronaviruses: hazard and risks
Frutos, R., Serra-Cobo, J., Pinault, L., Lopez Roig, M., & Devaux, C. A. (2021) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2021.591535 · Cited by 66
Metadata
- Authors
- Woo, P. C. Y., Wang, M., Lau, S. K. P., Xu, H., Poon, R. W. S., Guo, R., Wong, B. H. L., Gao, K., Tsoi, H.-W., Huang, Y., Li, K. S. M., Lam, C. S. F., Chan, K.-H., Zheng, B.-J., & Yuen, K.-Y.
- Venue
- Journal of Virology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2007-02-15
- Volume
- 81
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1574-1585
- ISSN
- 0022-538X (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5514
- OpenAlex
- W2068921257
- Cited by
- 282
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
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.