ArticleViruses2025
The Differences in the Evolutionary Dynamics of MERS and SARS Coronaviruses.
Article in Viruses, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Persistent signals from MERS-CoV in 2025: surveillance gaps, clinical heterogeneity, and preparedness priorities.New microbes and new infections · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are two coronaviruses that have received significant attention due to their high pathogenicity and mortality rates in human populations. In this study, we compared their evolutionary dynamics to provide a One Health perspective on their differences in terms of the results of disease control. The phylogenetic network of SARS-CoVs showed that human isolates gathered into a "super-spreader" cluster and were distinct from civet isolates. In contrast, dromedary camel- and human-isolated MERS-CoVs were clustered together. Thus, most clades of MERS-CoV can infect humans, and MERS-CoVs seem to more easily spill over the animal-to-human interface. Additionally, the civet can be easily controlled, while the intermediate host (dromedary camels) of MERS-CoV is an important livestock species, so it is impossible to eliminate all animals. This further leads to difficulties in disease control in MERS. Although MERS-CoVs are endemic to dromedary camels in both the Middle East and Africa, human infections are mainly linked to the Middle East. The nucleotide sequences of the MERS-CoV receptor gen (dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4)) from 30 Egyptians, 36 Sudanese, and 34 Saudi Arabians showed little difference. These findings suggest that the observed disparities in MERS prevalence between populations in the Middle East and Africa may be more strongly attributed to inadequate disease surveillance and the limited camel-to-human transmission of clade C MERS-CoV in Africa, rather than variations in
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.