Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 332

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cedar Virus: A Novel Henipavirus Isolated from Australian Bats

Open access
Marsh, Glenn A., de Jong, Carol, Barr, Jennifer A., Tachedjian, Mary, Smith, Craig, Middleton, Deborah, Yu, Meng, Todd, Shawn, Foord, Adam J., Haring, Volker, Payne, Jean, Robinson, Rachel, Broz, Ivano, Crameri, Gary, Field, Hume E., Wang, Lin-Fa·2012·PLoS Pathogens

Abstract

The genus Henipavirus in the family Paramyxoviridae contains two viruses, Hendra virus (HeV) and Nipah virus (NiV) for which pteropid bats act as the main natural reservoir. Each virus also causes serious and commonly lethal infection of people as well as various species of domestic animals, however little is known about the associated mechanisms of pathogenesis. Here, we report the isolation and characterization of a new paramyxovirus from pteropid bats, Cedar virus (CedPV), which shares significant features with the known henipaviruses. The genome size (18,162 nt) and organization of CedPV is very similar to that of HeV and NiV; its nucleocapsid protein displays antigenic cross-reactivity with henipaviruses; and it uses the same receptor molecule (ephrin-B2) for entry during infection. Preliminary challenge studies with CedPV in ferrets and guinea pigs, both susceptible to infection and disease with known henipaviruses, confirmed virus replication and production of neutralizing antibodies although clinical disease was not observed. In this context, it is interesting to note that the major genetic difference between CedPV and HeV or NiV lies within the coding strategy of the P gene, which is known to play an important role in evading the host innate immune system. Unlike HeV, NiV, and almost all known paramyxoviruses, the CedPV P gene lacks both RNA editing and also the coding capacity for the highly conserved V protein. Preliminary study indicated that CedPV infection of human cells induces a more robust IFN-β response than HeV.

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 · 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002836

Cites

33 of 33 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 33 references

Cited by

See all 332

Metadata

Authors
Marsh, G. A., de Jong, C., Barr, J. A., Tachedjian, M., Smith, C., Middleton, D., Yu, M., Todd, S., Foord, A. J., Haring, V., Payne, J., Robinson, R., Broz, I., Crameri, G., Field, H. E., & Wang, L.-F.
Venue
PLoS Pathogens
Published
2012-08-02
Volume
8
Issue
8
Pages
e1002836
ISSN
  • 1553-7366 (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7374
OpenAlex
W2015937741
Cited by
332
References
33
FWCI
20.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Cedar Virus: A Novel Henipavirus Isolated from Australian Bats. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.ppat.1002836
The paper
Marsh, G. A., de Jong, C., Barr, J. A., Tachedjian, M., Smith, C., Middleton, D., Yu, M., Todd, S., Foord, A. J., Haring, V., Payne, J., Robinson, R., Broz, I., Crameri, G., Field, H. E., & Wang, L.-F. (2012). Cedar Virus: A Novel Henipavirus Isolated from Australian Bats. PLoS Pathogens. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1002836

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.