You will be shown a paragraph from a biomedical research paper, followed by a question about the paper. Please extract text from the paragraph to answer the question. Do not include any text in your repsonse other than the answer.

Paragraph: With less than 80 % identity between the amino acid sequence of MERS ORF 1ab and betacoronavirus relatives, Tylonycteris bat HKU4 and Pipistrellus bat HKU5 , it can be concluded that it is a novel and distinct virus. MERS-CoV is predicted to encode ten open reading frames with 5' and 3' untranslated regions [51] . The structural proteins include the spike (S), envelope (E), membrane (M) and nucleocapsid (N) [52] . The products of ORF1a and ORF1b are predicted to encode nonstructural proteins. The majority of specimen testing to date has employed validated RT-rtPCR assays shown to be sensitive and specific [47, 48, 53] . The RealStar® kit uses these WHOrecommended assays [54] . The target sequences of these screening assays have not changed among genomes examined until at least mid-2015 (IMM observation). Other RT-rtPCR assays have been developed and validated for use as laboratory-based diagnostic tools [55] [56] [57] . Additionally, loop-mediated [58, 59] or recombinase polymerase [60] isothermal assays have been designed for field deployment. The detection of MERS-CoV antigen has not been common to date but the combination of short turnaround time from test to result, high throughput and identification of viral proteins makes this an attractive option. Detection of viral proteins rather than viral RNA indicates the likely presence of infectious virus. The first rapid immunochromatographic tool described could detect recombinant MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein from DC nasal swabs with 94 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity compared to RT-rtPCR [61] . A different approach used a monoclonal antibody-based capture ELISA targeting the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein with a sensitivity of 10 3 TCID 50 and 100 % specificity [62] . Demonstration of a seroconversion to a MERS-CoV infection meets the current WHO definition of a case so optimized and thoroughly validated sero-assays employed alongside good clinical histories are useful to both identify prior MERS-CoV infection and help support transmission studies. Because serology testing is, by its nature, retrospective, it is usual to detect a viral footprint, in the form of antibodies, in the absence of any signs or symptoms of disease and often in the absence of any viral RNA [63] . Strategic, widespread sero-surveys of humans using samples collected after 2012 are infrequent. Much of the Arabian Peninsula and all of the Horn of Africa lack baseline data describing the proportion of the community who may have been infected by a MERS-CoV. However, sero-surveys have had widespread use in elucidating the role of DCs as a transmission source for MERS-CoV. Because of the identity shared between DC and human MERS-CoV (see Molecular epidemiology: using genomes to understand outbreaks), serological assays for DC sero-surveys should be transferrable to human screening with minimal re-configuration. Also, no diagnostically relevant variation in neutralization activity have been found from among a range of circulating tested MERS-CoV isolates and sera, so whole virus or specific protein-based sero-assays should perform equivalently in detecting serological responses to the single MERS-CoV serotype [49] . The development of robust serological assays requires reliable panels of wellcharacterized animal or human sera, including those positive for antibodies specific to MERS-CoV, as well as to likely sources of cross-reaction [64] . Obtaining these materials was problematic and slowed the development and commercialization of antibody detection assays for human testing [64] . A number of commercial ELISA kits, immunofluorescent assays (IFA) kits, recombinant proteins and monoclonal antibodies have been released [31, [65] [66] [67] [68] . Initially, conventional IFAs were used for human sero-surveys. These relied on MERS-CoV-infected cell culture as an antigen source, detecting the presence of human anti-MERS-CoV IgG, IgM or neutralizing antibodies in human samples [18, 48, 69] . No sign of MERS-CoV antibodies was found among 2,400 sera from patients visiting Hospital in Jeddah, from 2010 through 2012, prior to the description of MERS-CoV [18] . Nor did IFA methods detect any sign of prior MERS-CoV infection among a small sample of 130 healthy blood donors from another Hospital in Jeddah (collected between Jan and Dec 2012) [70] . Of 226 slaughterhouse workers, only eight (3.5 %) were positive by IFA, and those sera could not be confirmed by virus neutralization (NT) test. The study indicated that HCoV-HKU1 was a likely source of crossreactive antigen in the whole virus IFA [70] . Whole virus MERS-CoV IFA also suffered from some cross-reactivity with convalescent SARS patient sera and this could not be resolved by an NT test which was also cross-reactive [71] . IFA using recombinant proteins instead of whole-virus IFA, has been shown to be a more specific tool [31] . Since asymptomatic zoonoses have been posited [72] , an absence of antibodies to MERS-CoV among some humans who have regular and close contact with camels may reflect the rarity of actively infected animals at butcheries, a limited transmission risk associated with slaughtering DCs [70] , a pre-existing cross-protective immune status or some other factor(s) resulting in a low risk of disease and concurrent seroconversion developing after exposure in this group. IFA using recombinant proteins instead. Some sero-assays have bypassed the risks of working with infectious virus by creating transfected cells expressing recombinant portions of the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid and spike proteins [48, 73] , or using a recombinant lentivirus expressing MERS-CoV spike protein and luciferase [74, 75] . A pseudo particle neutralization (ppNT) assay has seen widespread used in animal studies and was at least as sensitive as the traditional microneutralization (MNT) test. [10, 74, [76] [77] [78] ] Studies using small sample numbers and ppNT found no evidence of MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody in sera from 158 children with LRT infections between May 2010 and May 2011, 110 sera from 19 to 52 year old male blood donors and 300 selfidentified animal workers from the Jazan Region of the KSA during 2012 [79, 80] . Similarly, a study of four herdsmen in contact with an infected DC herd in Al-Ahsa, eight people who had intermittent contact with the herd, 30 veterinary surgeons and support staff who were not exposed to the herd, three unprotected abattoir workers in Al-Ahsa and 146 controls who were not exposed to DCs in any professional role, found none with serological evidence of past MERS-CoV infection using the ppNT assay [10] . A delay in the neutralizing antibody response to MERS-CoV infection was associated with increased disease severity in South Korea cases with most responses detectable by week three of illness while others, even though disease was severe, did not respond for four or more weeks [81] . The implications for our ability to detect any response in mild or asymptomatic cases was not explored but may be a signifcant factor in understanding exposure in the wider community. A Jordanian outbreak of acute LRT disease in a hospital in 2012 was retrospectively found to be associated with MERS-CoV infection, initially using RT-rtPCR, but subsequently, and on a larger scale, through positivity by ELISA and IFA or MNT test. [46, 82, 83] This outbreak predated the first case of MERS in the KSA. The ELISA used a recombinant nucleocapsid protein from the group 2 betacoronavirus bat-CoV HKU5 to identify antibodies against the equivalent crossreactive MERS-CoV protein [71] . It was validated using 545 sera collected from people with prior HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, SARS-CoV, HCoV-NL63, HRV, HMPV or influenza A(H1N1) infections but was reportedly less specific than the recombinant IFA discussed above. It was still considered an applicable tool for screening large sample numbers [82] . A protein microarray expressing the S1 protein subunit has also been validated and widely used for DC testing [5, 84] . Detection of MERS-CoV infection using ELISA or S1 subunit protein microarray [84] is usually followed by confirmatory IFA and/ or a plaque-reduction neutralization (PRNT) [69, 70, 85] or MNT test. [74, 85, 86] This confirmatory process aims toensure the antibodies detected are able to specifically neutralize the intended virus and are not more broadly reactive to other coronaviruses found in DCs (bovine CoV, BCoV) or humans (HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-HKU1, SARS-CoV). In the largest study of human sera, a tiered diagnostic process assigned both recombinant IFA and recombinant ELISA positive sera to 'stage 1' seropositivity. A stage 2 seropositive result additionally required a suitably titred PRNT result [87] . The study found 15 sera collected in 2012 to 2013 from 10,009 (0.2 %) people in 13 KSA provinces contained MERS-CoV antibodies, but significantly higher proportions in occurred in camel shepherds (two of 87; 2.3 %) and slaughterhouse workers (five of 140; 3.6 %) [87] . Contemporary surveys are needed. MERS-CoV does not appear to be easily transmitted from DCs to humans, or perhaps it is [72] , but generally does not trigger a detectable immune response if only mild disease or asymptomatic infection results. Serology assays are in need of further validation in this area so care is required when moving newly developed diagnostic serology algorithms from a research setting to one that informs public health decisions. This was reinforced when a false positive US case, purported to have been infected after a handshake and two face-to-face meetings, did not withstand further confirmatory analysis using a more specific, NT assay and was subsequently retracted [88, 89] . The WHO recommends sampling from the LRT for MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR testing, especially when sample collection is delayed by a week or more after onset of symptoms. [53] LRT samples are also best for attempting isolation of infectious virus, although the success of culture is reduced when disease persists [49] . Recommended sample types include bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), tracheal/tracheobronchial aspirate, pleural fluid and sputum [53, 90] . Fresh samples yield better diagnostic results than refrigerated material [69] and if delays in testing of ≥72 h are likely, samples (except for blood) should be frozen at −70°C [90] . If available, lung biopsy or autopsy tissues can also be tested [53] . The URT is a less invasive and more convenient sampling site however, and an oropharyngeal and throat swab or a nasopharyngeal aspirate/wash are recommended when URT sampling is to be conducted [90] . Paired sera, collected two to three weeks apart are preferable for serological testing while a single sample is suggested to be sufficient if collected two weeks after onset of disease or a single serum collected during the first 10-12 days if conducting RT-rtPCR [53, 90] . Human urine and stool have been found to contain MERS-CoV RNA 12 to 26 days after symptom onset [25, 69, 91] and are listed as samples that should be considered [53, 90] . In two cases that arrived in the Netherlands, urine was RT-rtPCR negative but faeces was weakly positive and sera were RT-rtPCR positive for five days or more [25] . The finding of MERS-CoV viral RNA in serum provides an avenue for retrospective PCR-based studies if respiratory samples are unavailable [83] . RNAaemia may also correlate with disease severity; signs of virus were cleared from the serum of a recovered patient, yet lingered until the death of another [92] . Clinically suspected MERS cases may return negative results by RT-rtPCR. Data have shown one or more negative URT samples may be contradicted by further URT sampling or the use of LRT samples, which is preferred [2, 43, 93] . Higher viral loads occur in the LRT compared to the URT. [22, 69, 88, 94] This fits with the observation that the majority of disease symptoms are reported to manifest as systemic and LRT disease [21] . However, on occasion, even LRT specimens from MERS cases may initially be negative, only to later become positive by RT-PCR [95] . This may be due to poor sampling when a cough is absent or non-productive or because the viral load is low [95] . Despite this both the largest human MERS-CoV studies [32, [96] [97] [98] and smaller ones [22, 25, 99] , use samples from the URT. It is then noteworthy that one study reported an association between higher loads in the URT and worse clinical outcome including intensive care and death [94] . At writing, no human data exist to define whether the virus replicates solely or preferentially in the LRT or URT, or replicates in other human tissues in vivo although MERS-CoV RNA has been detected from both the URT and LRT in a macaque monkey model [100] .The distribution of DPP4 in the human upper airways is also not well described. Individual human case studies report long periods of viral shedding, sometimes intermittently and not necessarily linked to the presence of disease symptoms. [25, 69, 99, 101] In one instance, a HCW shed viral RNA for 42 days in the absence of disease [99] . It is an area of high priority to better understand whether such cases are able to infect others. Over three quarters of MERS cases shed viral RNA in their LRT specimens (tracheal aspirates and sputum) for at least 30 days, while only 30 % of contacts were still shedding RNA in their URT specimens [91, 102] . In the only study to examine the effect of sample type on molecular analysis, 64 nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPA; an URT sample), 30 tracheal aspirates, 13 sputa and three BAL were examined.

Question: Why  it can be concluded that MERS-COV is a novel and distinct virus?
less than 80 % identity between the amino acid sequence of MERS ORF 1ab and betacoronavirus relatives, Tylonycteris bat HKU4 and Pipistrellus bat HKU5