↓ Skip to main content

Coronavirus Infection and Diversity in Bats in the Australasian Region

Overview of attention for article published in EcoHealth, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
Title
Coronavirus Infection and Diversity in Bats in the Australasian Region
Published in
EcoHealth, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10393-016-1116-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. S. Smith, C. E. de Jong, J. Meers, J. Henning, L- F. Wang, H. E. Field

Abstract

Following the SARS outbreak, extensive surveillance was undertaken globally to detect and identify coronavirus diversity in bats. This study sought to identify the diversity and prevalence of coronaviruses in bats in the Australasian region. We identified four different genotypes of coronavirus, three of which (an alphacoronavirus and two betacoronaviruses) are potentially new species, having less than 90% nucleotide sequence identity with the most closely related described viruses. We did not detect any SARS-like betacoronaviruses, despite targeting rhinolophid bats, the putative natural host taxa. Our findings support the virus-host co-evolution hypothesis, with the detection of Miniopterus bat coronavirus HKU8 (previously reported in Miniopterus species in China, Hong Kong and Bulgaria) in Australian Miniopterus species. Similarly, we detected a novel betacoronavirus genotype from Pteropus alecto which is most closely related to Bat coronavirus HKU9 identified in other pteropodid bats in China, Kenya and the Philippines. We also detected possible cross-species transmission of bat coronaviruses, and the apparent enteric tropism of these viruses. Thus, our findings are consistent with a scenario wherein the current diversity and host specificity of coronaviruses reflects co-evolution with the occasional host shift.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 17%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Student > Master 9 11%
Other 3 4%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 24 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 11%
Environmental Science 7 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 26 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 09 February 2024.
All research outputs
#2,530,358
of 23,956,119 outputs
Outputs from EcoHealth
#146
of 721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,746
of 304,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EcoHealth
#3
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,956,119 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 304,110 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.