↓ Skip to main content

Problems of classification in the family Paramyxoviridae

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Virology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
Title
Problems of classification in the family Paramyxoviridae
Published in
Archives of Virology, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00705-018-3720-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bert Rima, Peter Collins, Andrew Easton, Ron Fouchier, Gael Kurath, Robert A. Lamb, Benhur Lee, Andrea Maisner, Paul Rota, Lin-Fa Wang

Abstract

A number of unassigned viruses in the family Paramyxoviridae need to be classified either as a new genus or placed into one of the seven genera currently recognized in this family. Furthermore, numerous new paramyxoviruses continue to be discovered. However, attempts at classification have highlighted the difficulties that arise by applying historic criteria or criteria based on sequence alone to the classification of the viruses in this family. While the recent taxonomic change that elevated the previous subfamily Pneumovirinae into a separate family Pneumoviridae is readily justified on the basis of RNA dependent -RNA polymerase (RdRp or L protein) sequence motifs, using RdRp sequence comparisons for assignment to lower level taxa raises problems that would require an overhaul of the current criteria for assignment into genera in the family Paramyxoviridae. Arbitrary cut off points to delineate genera and species would have to be set if classification was based on the amino acid sequence of the RdRp alone or on pairwise analysis of sequence complementarity (PASC) of all open reading frames (ORFs). While these cut-offs cannot be made consistent with the current classification in this family, resorting to genus-level demarcation criteria with additional input from the biological context may afford a way forward. Such criteria would reflect the increasingly dynamic nature of virus taxonomy even if it would require a complete revision of the current classification.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 17%
Student > Bachelor 10 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Professor 3 5%
Student > Master 3 5%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 21 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 10%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 26 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 June 2020.
All research outputs
#6,492,856
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Virology
#772
of 4,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,211
of 441,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Virology
#15
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,208 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,137 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.