↓ Skip to main content

Proposal for a revised taxonomy of the family Filoviridae: classification, names of taxa and viruses, and virus abbreviations

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Virology, October 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#27 of 4,510)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
7 X users
patent
3 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
96 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
357 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Proposal for a revised taxonomy of the family Filoviridae: classification, names of taxa and viruses, and virus abbreviations
Published in
Archives of Virology, October 2010
DOI 10.1007/s00705-010-0814-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jens H. Kuhn, Stephan Becker, Hideki Ebihara, Thomas W. Geisbert, Karl M. Johnson, Yoshihiro Kawaoka, W. Ian Lipkin, Ana I. Negredo, Sergey V. Netesov, Stuart T. Nichol, Gustavo Palacios, Clarence J. Peters, Antonio Tenorio, Viktor E. Volchkov, Peter B. Jahrling

Abstract

The taxonomy of the family Filoviridae (marburgviruses and ebolaviruses) has changed several times since the discovery of its members, resulting in a plethora of species and virus names and abbreviations. The current taxonomy has only been partially accepted by most laboratory virologists. Confusion likely arose for several reasons: species names that consist of several words or which (should) contain diacritical marks, the current orthographic identity of species and virus names, and the similar pronunciation of several virus abbreviations in the absence of guidance for the correct use of vernacular names. To rectify this problem, we suggest (1) to retain the current species names Reston ebolavirus, Sudan ebolavirus, and Zaire ebolavirus, but to replace the name Cote d'Ivoire ebolavirus [sic] with Taï Forest ebolavirus and Lake Victoria marburgvirus with Marburg marburgvirus; (2) to revert the virus names of the type marburgviruses and ebolaviruses to those used for decades in the field (Marburg virus instead of Lake Victoria marburgvirus and Ebola virus instead of Zaire ebolavirus); (3) to introduce names for the remaining viruses reminiscent of jargon used by laboratory virologists but nevertheless different from species names (Reston virus, Sudan virus, Taï Forest virus), and (4) to introduce distinct abbreviations for the individual viruses (RESTV for Reston virus, SUDV for Sudan virus, and TAFV for Taï Forest virus), while retaining that for Marburg virus (MARV) and reintroducing that used over decades for Ebola virus (EBOV). Paying tribute to developments in the field, we propose (a) to create a new ebolavirus species (Bundibugyo ebolavirus) for one member virus (Bundibugyo virus, BDBV); (b) to assign a second virus to the species Marburg marburgvirus (Ravn virus, RAVV) for better reflection of now available high-resolution phylogeny; and (c) to create a new tentative genus (Cuevavirus) with one tentative species (Lloviu cuevavirus) for the recently discovered Lloviu virus (LLOV). Furthermore, we explain the etymological derivation of individual names, their pronunciation, and their correct use, and we elaborate on demarcation criteria for each taxon and virus.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 357 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
Italy 1 <1%
Vietnam 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 345 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 77 22%
Student > Master 55 15%
Researcher 51 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 5%
Other 58 16%
Unknown 53 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 109 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 40 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 39 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 36 10%
Chemistry 14 4%
Other 50 14%
Unknown 69 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 13 January 2024.
All research outputs
#856,041
of 25,576,801 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Virology
#27
of 4,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,521
of 110,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Virology
#2
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,801 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,510 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 110,027 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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 94% of its contemporaries.