MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046311880 · doi:10.1128/jvi.01933-10

The Capsid-Binding Nucleolar Helicase DDX56 Is Important for Infectivity of West Nile Virus

2011· article· en· W2046311880 on OpenAlexafffund
Zaikun Xu, Robert Anderson, Tom C. Hobman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Virology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Innovates - Health SolutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsCapsidBiologyVirologyRNANucleolusRNA Helicase AViral replicationInfectivityRibonucleoproteinCytoplasmHelicaseViral proteinVirusMolecular biologyCell biologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent findings suggest that in addition to its role in packaging genomic RNA, the West Nile virus (WNV) capsid protein is an important pathogenic determinant, a scenario that requires interaction of this viral protein with host cell proteins. We performed an extensive multitissue yeast two-hybrid screen to identify capsid-binding proteins in human cells. Here we describe the interaction between WNV capsid and the nucleolar RNA helicase DDX56/NOH61. Coimmunoprecipitation confirmed that capsid protein binds to DDX56 in infected cells and that this interaction is not dependent upon intact RNA. Interestingly, WNV infection induced the relocalization of DDX56 from the nucleolus to a compartment in the cytoplasm that also contained capsid protein. This phenomenon was apparently specific for WNV, as DDX56 remained in the nucleoli of cells infected with rubella and dengue 2 viruses. Further analyses showed that DDX56 is not required for replication of WNV; however, virions secreted from DDX56-depleted cells contained less viral RNA and were 100 times less infectious. Together, these data suggest that DDX56 is required for assembly of infectious WNV particles.

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 score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations84
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VirologySame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207