4.7 Article

Predicting the potential for zoonotic transmission and host associations for novel viruses

期刊

COMMUNICATIONS BIOLOGY
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s42003-022-03797-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Emerging Pandemic Threat PREDICT program [GHN-A-00-09-00010-00, AID-OAA-A-14-00102]
  2. National Institute Of Allergy And Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health [U01AI151814]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A network based on known virus-host associations can be used to predict the potential host range and spillover risk of novel viruses, including their potential to infect humans. By studying known virus-host associations, we can identify knowledge gaps in host range and potential pathways for human infection of newly discovered wildlife viruses. Models can be used to predict virus-host networks and prioritize surveillance targets to identify host ranges for newly discovered viruses.
Potential host range and spillover risk for novel viruses can be predicted using a network informed by known virus-host associations. Host-virus associations have co-evolved under ecological and evolutionary selection pressures that shape cross-species transmission and spillover to humans. Observed virus-host associations provide relevant context for newly discovered wildlife viruses to assess knowledge gaps in host-range and estimate pathways for potential human infection. Using models to predict virus-host networks, we predicted the likelihood of humans as hosts for 513 newly discovered viruses detected by large-scale wildlife surveillance at high-risk animal-human interfaces in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Predictions indicated that novel coronaviruses are likely to infect a greater number of host species than viruses from other families. Our models further characterize novel viruses through prioritization scores and directly inform surveillance targets to identify host ranges for newly discovered viruses.

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

4.7
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