MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988908493 · doi:10.1534/genetics.108.090555

Fixation Probability for Lytic Viruses: The Attachment-Lysis Model

2008· article· en· W1988908493 on OpenAlexaff
Zaheerabbas Patwa, Lindi M. Wahl

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFixation (population genetics)LysisLytic cycleBiologyPopulationGeneticsBacteriophageChemostatVirusBacteriaGeneMolecular biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fixation probability of a beneficial mutation is extremely sensitive to assumptions regarding the organism's life history. In this article we compute the fixation probability using a life-history model for lytic viruses, a key model organism in experimental studies of adaptation. The model assumes that attachment times are exponentially distributed, but that the lysis time, the time between attachment and host cell lysis, is constant. We assume that the growth of the wild-type viral population is controlled by periodic sampling (population bottlenecks) and also include the possibility that clearance may occur at a constant rate, for example, through washout in a chemostat. We then compute the fixation probability for mutations that increase the attachment rate, decrease the lysis time, increase the burst size, or reduce the probability of clearance. The fixation probability of these four types of beneficial mutations can be vastly different and depends critically on the time between population bottlenecks. We also explore mutations that affect lysis time, assuming that the burst size is constrained by the lysis time, for experimental protocols that sample either free phage or free phage and artificially lysed infected cells. In all cases we predict that the fixation probability of beneficial alleles is remarkably sensitive to the time between population bottlenecks.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations20
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207