Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sequence of a host's prion protein (PrP) can affect that host's susceptibility to prion disease and is the primary basis for the species barrier to transmission. Yet within many species, polymorphisms of the prion protein gene (Prnp) exist, each of which can further affect susceptibility or influence incubation period, pathology and phenotype. As strains are defined by these features (incubation period, pathology, phenotype), polymorphisms may also lead to the preferential propagation or generation of certain strains. In our recent study of the mouse Prnp(a) and Prnp(b) polymorphisms (which produced the proteins PrP(a) and PrP(b), respectively), we found differences in aggregation tendency, strain adaptability and conformational variability. Comparing our in vitro data with that of in vivo studies, we found that differing incubation periods between Prnp(a) and Prnp(b) mice can primarily be explained on the basis of faster or more efficient aggregation of PrP(a). In addition, and more importantly, we found that the faithful propagation of strains in Prnp(b) mice can be explained by the ability of PrP(b) to adopt a wider range of conformations. This adaptability allows PrP(b) to successfully propagate the structural features of a seed. In contrast, Prnp(a) mice revert PrP(b) strains into PrP(a) -type strains, and overall they have a narrower distribution of incubation periods. This can be explained by PrP(a) having fewer preferred conformations. We propose that Prnp polymorphisms are one route by which certain prion strains may preferentially propagate. This has significant implications for prion disease, chronic wasting disease (CWD) in particular, as it is spreading through North America. Deer which are susceptible to CWD also carry polymorphisms which influence their susceptibility. If these polymorphisms also preferentially allow strain diversification and propagation, this may accelerate the crossing of species barriers and propagation of the disease up the food chain.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".