MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984467897 · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2015.00135

In silico analysis suggests interaction between Ebola virus and the extracellular matrix

2015· article· en· W1984467897 on OpenAlexaff
Veljko Veljković, Sanja Glišić, Claude P. Muller, Matthew Scotch, Donald R. Branch, Vladimir Perović, Milan Senćanski, Nevena Veljković, Alfonso Colombatti

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Microbiology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Outbreaks Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Blood Services
FundersMinistarstvo Prosvete, Nauke i Tehnološkog Razvoja
KeywordsEbola virusIn silicoVP40Extracellular matrixViral matrix proteinSierra leoneGlycoproteinComputational biologyBiologyVirusVirologyMedicineCell biologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The worst Ebola virus (EV) outbreak in history has hit Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea hardest and the trend lines in this crisis are grave, and now represents a global public health threat concern. Limited therapeutic and/or prophylactic options are available for people suffering from Ebola virus disease (EVD) and further complicate the situation. Previous studies suggested that the EV glycoprotein (GP) is the main determinant causing structural damage of endothelial cells that triggers the hemorrhagic diathesis, but molecular mechanisms underlying this phenomenon remains elusive. Using the informational spectrum method (ISM), a virtual spectroscopy method for analysis of the protein-protein interactions, the interaction of GP with endothelial extracellular matrix (ECM) was investigated. Presented results of this in silico study suggest that Elastin Microfibril Interface Located Proteins (EMILINs) are involved in interaction between GP and ECM. This finding could contribute to a better understanding of EV/endothelium interaction and its role in pathogenesis, prevention and therapy of EVD.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations28
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MicrobiologySame topicViral Infections and Outbreaks ResearchFrench-language works237,207