↓ Skip to main content

Could human coronavirus OC43 have co-evolved with early humans?

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics and Molecular Biology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Could human coronavirus OC43 have co-evolved with early humans?
Published in
Genetics and Molecular Biology, June 2018
DOI 10.1590/1678-4685-gmb-2017-0192
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paulo Eduardo Brandão

Abstract

This paper reports on an investigation of the role of codon usage evolution on the suggested bovine-to-human spillover of Bovine coronavirus (BCoV), an enteric/respiratory virus of cattle, resulting in the emergence of the exclusively respiratory Human coronavirus OC43 (HCoV-OC43). Analyses based on full genomes of BCoV and HCoV-OC43 and on both human and bovine mRNAs sequences of cholecystokinin (CCK) and surfactant protein 1 A (SFTP1-A), representing the enteric and respiratory tract codon usage, respectively, have shown natural selection leading to optimization or deoptimization of viral codon usage to the human enteric and respiratory tracts depending on the virus genes under consideration. A higher correlation was found for the nucleotide distance at the 3rd nucleotide position of codons and codon usage optimization to the human respiratory tract when BCoV and HCoV-OC43 were compared. An MCC tree based on relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) data integrating data from both viruses and hosts into a same analysis indicated three putative host/virus contact dates ranging from 1.54E8 to 2.44E5 years ago, suggesting that an ancestor coronavirus might have followed human evolution.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 29%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Other 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 10 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 12%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 5%
Computer Science 2 5%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 11 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 April 2022.
All research outputs
#7,050,597
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Genetics and Molecular Biology
#104
of 772 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,149
of 342,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics and Molecular Biology
#2
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 772 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 342,889 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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.