Bats host major mammalian paramyxoviruses
Authors: Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit
Florian Gloza-Rausch
Florian Fronhoffs
Samuel Oppong
Yaw Adu Sarkodie
Alexander N Lukashev
Victor Max Corman
Gael Darren Maganga
Peter Vallo
Mirjam Knörnschild
René Kallies
Elisabeth K V Kalko
Reinhard Buettner
Georg Herrler
Stoian Yordanov
Aroldo José Borges Carneiro
Rainer G Ulrich
Thomas Kruppa
Emmanuel R N Yandoko
Andrea Maisner
Christian Drosten
Veronika M Cottontail
Sonja Matthee
Jan Felix Drexler
Detlev H Krüger
Andrea Rasche
Stephanie Erbar
Tabea Binger
Eric M Leroy
Carlos Roberto Franke
Antje Seebens
Alexandre Hassanin
Chantal Reusken
Andreas Stöcker
Célestin Pongombo
Marcel Alexander Müller
Journal: Nature Communications (2012)
Discipline: Multidisciplinary
Keywords: Paramyxoviridae; viruses; bats; rodents; host switches
Affiliations: Institute of Virology, University of Bonn Medical Centre, Bonn 53127, Germany.

Abstract:  The large virus family Paramyxoviridae includes some of the most significant human and livestock viruses, such as measles-, distemper-, mumps-, parainfluenza-, Newcastle disease-, respiratory syncytial virus and metapneumoviruses. Here we identify an estimated 66 new paramyxoviruses in a worldwide sample of 119 bat and rodent species (9,278 individuals). Major discoveries include evidence of an origin of Hendra- and Nipah virus in Africa, identification of a bat virus conspecific with the human mumps virus, detection of close relatives of respiratory syncytial virus, mouse pneumonia- and canine distemper virus in bats, as well as direct evidence of Sendai virus in rodents. Phylogenetic reconstruction of host associations suggests a predominance of host switches from bats to other mammals and birds. Hypothesis tests in a maximum likelihood framework permit the phylogenetic placement of bats as tentative hosts at ancestral nodes to both the major Paramyxoviridae subfamilies (Paramyxovirinae and Pneumovirinae). Future attempts to predict the emergence of novel paramyxoviruses in humans and livestock will have to rely fundamentally on these data. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 some image duplications ![file] , 
 #1 I believe you have misinterpreted the Figure legend, based on the lettering you have added to panels **a-c** ( Rhino..., Hippo..., Vesper... ), which is not in the published Figure and which is not correct. This is admittedly confusing because the Figure has two different sets of lowercase lettering. That is, panel **a** has subcategories a b c d e f g h, panel **b** has subcategories a b c, and panel **c** has subcategories a b c d. Please note that the subcategories are described in NON-BOLD font in the legend. In panels **a** and **b**, the subcategories are bat species, and designations a b c refer to identical species in the two panels (i.e., in both cases they refer to *R.s.*, *H.c.*, and *M.i.*). The images duplicated in panels **a** and **b** are the same data (sera from *R.s.*, *H.c.*, and *M.i.*, tested for reactivity to mumps virus), presumably repeated in the top row of panel **b** in order to facilitate comparison with results for the 4 other virus types in the other rows. I don t see this as problematic, but I agree it is confusing. It would have been much clearer if the subcategories were labeled differently, such as i ii iii iv v, etc. I hope that helps clarify matters. ,