4.3 Review

The emerging novel Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus: The knowns and unknowns

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE FORMOSAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
卷 112, 期 7, 页码 372-381

出版社

ELSEVIER TAIWAN
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfma.2013.05.010

关键词

coronavirus; EMC; human; Middle East; SARS

资金

  1. Research Grant Council Grant, Theme-based Research Scheme, University Grant Council
  2. HKSAR Health and Medical Research Fund
  3. University of Hong Kong
  4. Consultancy Service for Enhancing Laboratory Surveillance of Emerging Infectious Disease for the HKSAR Department of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel lineage C betacoronavirus, originally named human coronavirus EMC/2012 (HCoV-EMC) and recently renamed Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), that is phylogenetically closely related to Tylonycteris bat coronavirus HKU4 and Pipistrellus bat coronavirus HKU5, which we discovered in 2007 from bats in Hong Kong, has recently emerged in the Middle East to cause a severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-like infection in humans. The first laboratory-confirmed case, which involved a 60-year-old man from Bisha, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), who died of rapidly progressive community-acquired pneumonia and acute renal failure, was announced by the World Health Organization (WHO) on September 23, 2012. Since then, a total of 70 cases, including 39 fatalities, have been reported in the Middle East and Europe. Recent clusters involving epidemiologically-linked household contacts and hospital contacts in the Middle East, Europe, and Africa strongly suggested possible human-to-human transmission. Clinical and laboratory research data generated in the past few months have provided new insights into the possible animal reservoirs, transmissibility, and virulence of MERS-CoV, and the optimal laboratory diagnostic options and potential antiviral targets for MERS-CoV-associated infection. Copyright (C) 2013, Elsevier Taiwan LLC & Formosan Medical Association. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据