MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969381724 · doi:10.4236/aim.2014.416132

Molecular Mechanisms of Raccoon Rabies Virus Progression in Its Natural Host

2014· article· en· W1969381724 on OpenAlexafffund
Vythegi Srithayakumar, Hariharan Sribalachandran, Rick Rosatte, Christopher J. Kyle

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Microbiology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicRabies epidemiology and control
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryTrent University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Food Inspection AgencyMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsBiologyVirulenceVirologyRabies virusVirusRabiesNucleoproteinHost (biology)LyssavirusViral replicationNatural reservoirRhabdoviridaeGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rabies virus presents a global public health problem. Our current understanding of the molecular determinants of rabies virulence stems from rodent models and laboratory strains of the virus, however, it is unclear how well rodent models represent viral response in natural reservoirs. Here, we examined interactions between the raccoon variant of rabies virus (RRV) and its natural host, raccoons, to gain a better understanding of molecular determinants of virulence in this system. We found expression patterns of RRV genes under tight control until the virus reached the central nervous system where replication increased significantly. Further, our examination of viral variants within an individual revealed that variant diversity may have an effect on virulence. We found that a mutation at a region of a T helper cell epitope on the nucleoprotein was associated with viral challenge outcomes and could be associated with RRV pathogenicity.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in MicrobiologySame topicRabies epidemiology and controlFrench-language works237,207