ArticleEBioMedicine2024
A retrospective genomic characterisation of the 2022 mpox outbreak in Belgium, and in vitro assessment of three antiviral compounds.
Article in EBioMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genomic characterization and infectivity assessment of Monkeypox virus from the 2022 Croatian outbreak.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
- Advanced strategies for the diagnosis, treatment, and vaccination of monkeypox.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- Mpox Clade IIb Virus Introduction into Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, July 2025.Viruses · 2026Article
- The transformative impact of ultra-rapid nanopore sequencing in precision medicine.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Monkeypox Virus Partial-Genome Amplicon Sequencing for Improvement of Genomic Surveillance during Mpox Outbreaks.Emerging infectious diseases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince the beginning of May 2022, cases of mpox have been reported in several European and American countries where the disease is nonendemic. We performed a retrospective genomic characterisation of the 2022 mpox outbreak in Belgium, and assessed the in vitro sensitivity of three antiviral compounds to a monkeypox virus (MPXV) strain from the 2022 outbreak.
methodsWe sequenced the complete genomes of MPXV isolated from skin-, throat-, anorectal- and genital swab samples using the Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) GridION. We subsequently analysed high-quality complete MPXV genomes and conducted a genomic analysis of MPXV complete genomes from this study with all other complete MPXV genomes available on GISAID up to October 28th, 2022. The in vitro activity of tecovirimat, brincidofovir, and cidofovir was also tested in human and monkey cell lines.
findingsWe produced 248 complete MPXV genomes. Phylogenetic analysis of the complete MPXV genomes revealed that they all belong to MPXV Clade IIb B.1. Surprisingly, through phylogeographic analysis we identified a minimum number of 79 introduction events into Belgium, along with sustained local transmission. We also demonstrated the superior in vitro efficacy and selectivity of tecovirimat to the 2022 MPXV clinical strain.
interpretationThe number of sequences provides sufficient information about the MPXV lineages that were circulating in Belgium. The 2022 mpox outbreak, in Belgium, was mainly characterised by many introduction events that were promptly contained and resulted in limited human-to-human transmission of MPXV. The in vitro efficacy of antivirals against a 2022 MPXV Belgian strain highlights the potent activity and specificity of tecovirimat and its ability to prevent the formation of the extracellular enveloped viruses.
fundingNone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.