ScienceInsider: When MERS Transmission Studies Clash

Credit FAO

 

# 8726

 

Last week, in More Evidence for Camel-to-Human MERS-CoV Transmission, we looked at a NEJM study that Dr. Ian Mackay rightfully pointed out on his blog, was based on a transmission event that had previously been described by Memish, Drosten, et al. in an EID Journal report published in March.

The NEJM study was co-authored by Dr Tariq Madani of King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, who was appointed special MERS advisor by the newly appointed Health Minister, Adel bin Mohammed Faqih,  last April.

 

Curiously, there was no mention of the earlier publication by Memish et at. on the same patient/camel testing in the EID Journal, published nearly two months earlier.  I would note that when I checked back yesterday, the editors at the NEJM had belatedly attached a terse note stating:

 

Editor’s note: The patient and camels discussed in this article are also described in Memish ZA, Cotten M, Meyer B, et al. Human infection with MERS coronavirus after exposure to infected camels, Saudi Arabia, 2013. Emerg Infect Dis 2014;20:1012-5.

 

This story only gets stranger, as we learn from a Science Insider report from Kai Kupferschmidt, who delves deeper into the behind-the-scenes machinations surrounding this study.  Included are observations and comments from Dr. Ian Mackay, Dr. Michael Osterholm, Dr. Christian Drosten, and Dr. Ziad Memish.

 

Along the way, we also see concerns expressed over possible contamination issues with the second paper’s test results.

 

While this story has the makings of a terrific prime-time soap opera, it doesn’t exactly infuse the reader with a warm fuzzy feeling over the way that MERS research is being conducted in Saudi Arabia.   Follow the link to read:

 

 

Research teams clash over too-similar MERS papers

Kai Kupferschmidt

Tuesday, June 10, 2014 - 6:45pm

A great story can be told again and again. But scientists working on the deadly Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) virus are puzzled by two papers appearing in separate journals that not only tell the same story, but also are based on data from the very same patient in Saudi Arabia.

(Continue . . .)

Picking A Novel Name For A Novel Virus

Photo Credit NIAID

 

# 7238

 

The novel coronavirus that appeared just over a year ago on the Arabian peninsula has gone by many names, none of which have particularly satisfactory, or have been universally adopted.

 

Originally dubbed  betacoronavirus 2c EMC2012, the World Health Organization has opted for easier to type nCoV, while the CDC has used the long form `novel coronavirus’. Other names in use have included HCoV-EMC/2012, NCoV, HCoV, and HCoV-EMC.

 

The trouble with calling it `novel coronavirus’ or nCoV is that there are other, equally novel coronaviruses out there, and we could someday have to deal with two of them at the same time. 

 

Today Martin Enserink writing for Science Insider, has news of a new name for this virus, chosen by a group of international experts, that will hopefully end the confusion.

 

Their solution?  Call it Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV).  Or just MERS.

 

 

International Group Settles on Name for New Coronavirus

by Martin Enserink on 6 May 2013, 1:05 PM 

New MERS cases. The MERS coronavirus. Or—if things turn really bad—the MERS pandemic. That's how the world may soon be talking about the new virus that surfaced in the Arabian Peninsula last summer and that has been rattling health experts since. In a move that may end more than 7 months of confusion, an international group of scientists and public health officials will soon recommend that the new virus be called Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV).

 

The group plans to publish a paper recommending the new name, says Raoul de Groot, a veterinary virologist at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, who has coordinated the effort. De Groot chairs the Coronavirus Study Group of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV), which took the initiative to find a new, widely accepted name. The study group has no power to enforce use of the name, however; it will be up to researchers to decide whether to adopt the moniker.

(Continue . . .)

 

MERS does has the virtue of being easier to type and pronounce than hCoV-EMC, which has been used by many researchers, while being more specific than the generic nCoV used by WHO.

 

While I’m willing to adopt it, it remains to be seen what kind of reaction this new name will get in the media, with public health organizations, and among researchers.