Caliciviruses Differ in Their Functional Requirements for eIF4F Components
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two classes of viruses, namely members of the Potyviridae and Caliciviridae, use a novel mechanism for the initiation of protein synthesis that involves the interaction of translation initiation factors with a viral protein covalently linked to the viral RNA, known as VPg. The calicivirus VPg proteins can interact directly with the initiation factors eIF4E and eIF3. Translation initiation on feline calicivirus (FCV) RNA requires eIF4E because it is inhibited by recombinant 4E-BP1. However, to date, there have been no functional studies carried out with respect to norovirus translation initiation, because of a lack of a suitable source of VPg-linked viral RNA. We have now used the recently identified murine norovirus (MNV) as a model system for norovirus translation and have extended our previous studies with FCV RNA to examine the role of the other eIF4F components in translation initiation. We now demonstrate that, as with FCV, MNV VPg interacts directly with eIF4E, although, unlike FCV RNA, translation of MNV RNA is not sensitive to 4E-BP1, eIF4E depletion, or foot-and-mouth disease virus Lb protease-mediated cleavage of eIF4G. We also demonstrate that both FCV and MNV RNA translation require the RNA helicase component of the eIF4F complex, namely eIF4A, because translation was sensitive (albeit to different degrees) to a dominant negative form and to a small molecule inhibitor of eIF4A (hippuristanol). These results suggest that calicivirus RNAs differ with respect to their requirements for the components of the eIF4F translation initiation complex.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".