Why the study?
Evolutionary relationships among enteroviruses and rhinoviruses often conflict with older biologically defined terms, creating widespread formatting problems and inconsistencies in nomenclature across the literature and public databases.
Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Design
Taxonomic recommendations
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Adoption of these nomenclature standards should reduce reporting inconsistencies in clinical and research settings; extends taxonomic harmonization for enteroviruses and rhinoviruses.
Enteroviruses (EVs) and rhinoviruses (RVs) are significant pathogens of humans and are the subject of intensive clinical and epidemiological research and public health measures, notably in the eradication of poliovirus and in the investigation and control of emerging pathogenic EV types worldwide. EVs and RVs are highly diverse in their antigenic properties, tissue tropism, disease associations and evolutionary relationships, but the latter often conflict with previously developed biologically defined terms, such as "coxsackieviruses", "polioviruses" and "echoviruses", which were used before their genetic interrelationships were understood. This has created widespread formatting problems and inconsistencies in the nomenclature for EV and RV types and species in the literature and public databases. As members of the International Committee for Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) Picornaviridae Study Group, we describe the correct use of taxon names for these viruses and have produced a series of recommendations for the nomenclature of EV and RV types and their abbreviations. We believe their adoption will promote greater clarity and consistency in the terminology used in the scientific and medical literature. The recommendations will additionally provide a useful reference guide for journals, other publications and public databases seeking to use standardised terms for the growing multitude of enteroviruses and rhinoviruses described worldwide.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Simmonds et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: