MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087190289 · doi:10.1128/jvi.01965-13

Atomic Structure of Cucumber Necrosis Virus and the Role of the Capsid in Vector Transmission

2013· article· en· W2087190289 on OpenAlexafffund
Ming Li, Kishore Kakani, Umesh Katpally, S. D. Johnson, D’Ann Rochon, Thomas J. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Virology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyCapsidZoosporeVirologyVirusGeneticsMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cucumber Necrosis Virus (CNV) is a member of the genus Tombusvirus and has a monopartite positive-sense RNA genome packaged in a T=3 icosahedral particle. CNV is transmitted in nature via zoospores of the fungus Olpidium bornovanus. CNV undergoes a conformational change upon binding to the zoospore that is required for transmission, and specific polysaccharides on the zoospore surface have been implicated in binding. To better understand this transmission process, we have determined the atomic structure of CNV. As expected, being a member of the Tombusvirus genus, the core structure of CNV is highly similar to that of Tomato bushy stunt virus (TBSV), with major differences lying on the exposed loops. Also, as was seen with TBSV, CNV appears to have a calcium binding site between the subunits around the quasi-3-fold axes. However, unlike TBSV, there appears to be a novel zinc binding site within the β annulus formed by the N termini of the three C subunits at the icosahedral 3-fold axes. Two of the mutations causing defective transmission map immediately around this zinc binding site. The other mutations causing defective transmission and particle formation are mapped onto the CNV structure, and it is likely that a number of the mutations affect zoospore transmission by affecting conformational transitions rather than directly affecting receptor binding.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations22
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VirologySame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207