Infection Dynamics in Viral Spread and Interference Under the Synergism Between <i>Cucumber mosaic virus</i> and <i>Turnip mosaic virus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mixed infection of Cucumber mosaic virus (CMV) and Turnip mosaic virus (TuMV) induced more severe symptoms on Nicotiana benthamiana than single infection. To dissect the relationships between spatial infection patterns and the 2b protein (2b) of CMV in single or mixed infections, the CMV vectors expressing enhanced green fluorescent or Discosoma sp. red fluorescent proteins (EGFP [EG] or DsRed2 [Ds], respectively were constructed from the same wild-type CMV-Y and used for inoculation onto N. benthamiana. CMV2-A1 vector (C2-A1 [A1]) has a functional 2b while CMV-H1 vector (C2-H1 [H1]) is 2b deficient. As we expected from the 2b function as an RNA silencing suppressor (RSS), in a single infection, A1Ds retained a high level of accumulation at initial infection sites and showed extensive fluorescence in upper, noninoculated leaves, whereas H1Ds disappeared rapidly at initial infection sites and could not spread efficiently in upper, noninoculated leaf tissues. In various mixed infections, we found two phenomena providing novel insights into the relationships among RSS, viral synergism, and interference. First, H1Ds could not spread efficiently from vasculature into nonvascular tissues with or without TuMV, suggesting that RNA silencing was not involved in CMV unloading from vasculature. These results indicated that 2b could promote CMV to unload from vasculature into nonvascular tissues, and that this 2b function might be independent of its RSS activity. Second, we detected spatial interference (local interference) between A1Ds and A1EG in mixed infection with TuMV, between A1Ds (or H1Ds) and TuMV, and between H1Ds and H1EG. This observation suggested that local interference between two viruses was established even in the synergism between CMV and TuMV and, again, RNA silencing did not seem to contribute greatly to this phenomenon.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".