Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22879820›Full record

ArticlePLoS pathogens2012

Cedar virus: a novel Henipavirus isolated from Australian bats.

Glenn A Marsh, Carol de Jong, Jennifer A Barr, Mary Tachedjian, Craig Smith, Deborah Middleton, Meng Yu, Shawn Todd, Adam J Foord, Volker Haring and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS pathogens, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 206 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
206citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
18.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

206 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 335 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Prioritizing surveillance of Nipah virus in India.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2019
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Strengthening preparedness and response to emerging henipavirus diversity.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

146 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Glenn A MarshCSIRO Livestock Industries, Australian Animal Health Laboratory, Geelong, Australia.
Carol de Jong
Jennifer A Barr
Mary Tachedjian
Craig Smith
Deborah Middleton
Meng Yu
Shawn Todd
Adam J Foord
Volker Haring
Jean Payne
Rachel Robinson
Ivano Broz
Gary Crameri
Hume E Field
Lin-Fa Wang
Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness · AUCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The genus Henipavirus in the family Paramyxoviridae contains two viruses, Hendra virus (HeV) and Nipah virus (NiV) for which pteropid bats act as the main natural reservoir. Each virus also causes serious and commonly lethal infection of people as well as various species of domestic animals, however little is known about the associated mechanisms of pathogenesis. Here, we report the isolation and characterization of a new paramyxovirus from pteropid bats, Cedar virus (CedPV), which shares significant features with the known henipaviruses. The genome size (18,162 nt) and organization of CedPV is very similar to that of HeV and NiV; its nucleocapsid protein displays antigenic cross-reactivity with henipaviruses; and it uses the same receptor molecule (ephrin-B2) for entry during infection. Preliminary challenge studies with CedPV in ferrets and guinea pigs, both susceptible to infection and disease with known henipaviruses, confirmed virus replication and production of neutralizing antibodies although clinical disease was not observed. In this context, it is interesting to note that the major genetic difference between CedPV and HeV or NiV lies within the coding strategy of the P gene, which is known to play an important role in evading the host innate immune system. Unlike HeV, NiV, and almost all known paramyxoviruses, the CedPV P gene lacks both RNA editing and also the coding capacity for the highly conserved V protein. Preliminary study indicated that CedPV infection of human cells induces a more robust IFN-β response than HeV.

Indexed as

HenipavirusHenipavirus InfectionsImmune EvasionImmunity, InnateAnimalsAntibodies, ViralAustraliaChiropteraFerretsGenome, ViralGuinea PigsHumansAntibodies, Viral

Identifiers

PMID22879820
PMCPMC3410871
OpenAlexW2015937741

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.