MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019454627 · doi:10.1002/jmv.20776

Genetic relationship of Torque Teno virus (TTV) between humans and camels in United Arab Emirates (UAE)

2006· article· en· W2019454627 on OpenAlexaff
M. I. Al-Moslih, Heather Perkins, Yu‐Wen Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Virology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Virus Infections Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCanadian Blood Services
FundersUniversity of SharjahUtah Agricultural Experiment Station
KeywordsTorque teno virusGenotypeBiologyVirologyPasteurizationRaw milkVeterinary medicinePhylogenetic treeGeneticsMedicineGeneFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Torque Teno Virus (TTV) species-cross infection has been documented. However, the genetic relationship between human and animal TTV remains uncertain. In this study, genotypic characterization of TTV in different Camel specimens from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) was undertaken for comparison with human UAE TTV. A total of 56 specimens: 34 sera, 14 raw, and 8 pasteurized milk samples were tested for TTV. The results showed that the rate of infection was, 38.2% (13/34), 35.7% (5/14), and 100% (8/8), for the samples of sera, raw, and pasteurized milk respectively. The 5'untranslated region (5'UTR) of 23 clones that were generated from PCR products amplified from Camel samples (three sera, three raw, and two pasteurized milk samples) were subjected to sequence analysis. The camel TTV clones were classified as genotype 11 (47.8%), group 5 (43.5%), and SENV-H or genotype 16 (8.7%) which are among the predominant genotypes found in humans in the UAE. Phylogenetic analysis of representative sequences revealed that the similarity between isolates from camels and humans is 92%-97% for the same genotypes. The data lead to the conclusion that camels and humans share a common source of TTV infection in the UAE.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations25
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical VirologySame topicAnimal Virus Infections StudiesFrench-language works237,207