Rubella Virus RNA Replication Is cis-Preferential and Synthesis of Negative- and Positive-Strand RNAs Is Regulated by the Processing of Nonstructural Protein
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rubella virus (RV) genome encodes nonstructural protein (NSP) in a large open reading frame at its 5' end. It is translated into p200 and further processed into p150 and p90. The NSPs are responsible for viral RNA replication, during which a full-length negative-strand RNA serves as the intermediate for the replication of positive-strand genomic RNA and the transcription of subgenomic RNA. Using complementation experiments, we demonstrated that RV negative-strand RNA is synthesized preferentially in cis while positive-strand RNAs can be synthesized both in cis and in trans but with higher efficiency in cis. During virus infection, negative-strand RNA accumulates until 10 hours postinfection (hpi) and remains nearly constant thereafter. In contrast, positive-strand RNAs (both genomic and subgenomic RNA) do not increase much before 10 hpi and accumulate rapidly thereafter. Previously we demonstrated that p200 synthesizes negative- but not positive-strand RNA, whereas cleavage products p150/p90 are required for efficient production of positive-strand RNAs. In this study, we present evidence demonstrating that a higher concentration of p150/p90 is associated with lower production of negative-strand RNA. Our data support the hypothesis that p200 is the principal replicase for negative-strand RNA, as is p150/p90 for positive-strand RNA. The switch from the synthesis of negative- to positive-strand RNA is thus regulated by NSP processing, which not only activates the efficient production of positive-strand RNA, but also disables negative-strand RNA synthesis. A mechanism for NSP translation, processing, and regulation of RV RNA synthesis is proposed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".