MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046861479 · doi:10.4161/viru.24498

Importance of prophages to evolution and virulence of bacterial pathogens

2013· review· en· W2046861479 on OpenAlexaff
Louis‐Charles Fortier, Ognjen Sekulović

Bibliographic record

VenueVirulence · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicBacteriophages and microbial interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirulenceBiologyProphageMicrobiologyPathogenGeneticsVirologyBacteriophageEscherichia coliGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bacteriophages, or simply phages, are viruses infecting bacteria. With an estimated 10 ( 31) particles in the biosphere, phages outnumber bacteria by a factor of at least 10 and not surprisingly, they influence the evolution of most bacterial species, sometimes in unexpected ways. "Temperate" phages have the ability to integrate into the chromosome of their host upon infection, where they can reside as "quiescent" prophages until conditions favor their reactivation. Lysogenic conversion resulting from the integration of prophages encoding powerful toxins is probably the most determinant contribution of prophages to the evolution of pathogenic bacteria. We currently grasp only a small fraction of the total phage diversity. Phage biologists keep unraveling novel mechanisms developed by phages to parasitize their host. The purpose of this review is to give an overview of some of the various ways by which prophages change the lifestyle and boost virulence of some of the most dangerous bacterial pathogens.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations581
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVirulenceSame topicBacteriophages and microbial interactionsFrench-language works237,207