Wouldn’t it be classified as a “SARS-related coronavirus” / “SARSr-CoV”? It along with the SARS outbreak clade nests within naturally occurring bat SARSr-CoV diversity.
This is not correct - this is *not* a re-emergence of SARS-CoV, it's the emergence of a novel Betacoronavirus. The nucleotide identity between SARS-CoV and nCoV is <80%.https://twitter.com/MarietFeltkamp/status/1219239218855149569 …
-
-
-
"SARS-related coronavirus" would be okay, but is largely a meaningless definition IMO. This is clearly a new emergence into the human population, so to avoid confusion would be better to make a separate taxonomy. Key is - it's not re-emergence.
- Nog 2 antwoorden
Nieuw gesprek -
-
-
Deze Tweet is niet beschikbaar.
-
No defined cutoffs, although ICTV would like to make them up (which is pretty much impossible). In this case, nCoV is clearly drawn from a different population than the previous SARS-CoV epidemic, so not re-emergence.
- Nog 2 antwoorden
-
-
-
Could that be categorised as a genotype with branches of diverging viruses? Or other words, related viruses with different fitness level?
Bedankt, Twitter gebruikt dit om je tijdlijn te verbeteren. Ongedaan makenOngedaan maken
-
-
-
The point I wanted to make was Wuhan nCoV is not just a mistery coronavirus. It has a high percentage of similarity with SARS-CoV, much more than with any other CoV, and according to my ICTV contact groups among the SARS-related CoV species.
- Nog 1 antwoord
Nieuw gesprek -
Het laden lijkt wat langer te duren.
Twitter is mogelijk overbelast of ondervindt een tijdelijke onderbreking. Probeer het opnieuw of bekijk de Twitter-status voor meer informatie.