MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094860169 · doi:10.1159/000104788

Evolution and Variation of the H3 Gene of Influenza A Virus and Interaction among Hosts

2007· article· en· W2094860169 on OpenAlexaff
Wentong Zhang, Qingwu Jiang, Yue Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueIntervirology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersLos Alamos National Laboratory
KeywordsBiologyPhylogenetic treeGeneHemagglutinin (influenza)Lineage (genetic)CladeVirusGeneticsRate of evolutionInfluenza A virusVirologyAntigenic variation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Continual mutations to the hemagglutinin (HA) gene of influenza A virus generate novel antigenic strains that cause annual epidemics. The aim of this study was to evaluate evolution tendency of the H3 gene in a long period of time. METHODS: 1842 H3 HA1 nucleotide strains of different hosts were collected for analysis. A two-step clustering method was used to divide strains into groups, and then a phylogenetic tree was constructed based on cluster results. Evolution rate in lineages were future estimated. RESULTS: Tree structure showed three lineages: horse/canine, human/swine and avian. As a single trunk, the human/swine lineage was mainly composed of human strains, and more big branches appeared in recent years. Tree topology showed no evidence that swine affected the main evolution tendency of human H3 strains. The evolution rate of H3 strains varied between lineages. We observed that the rate in the human lineage decreased from 3.2 substitutions/year before 1980 to 1.8 after 1997. CONCLUSION: We concluded that the variation of human H3 gene was associated with swine strains but independent of others, including bird strains. The evolution rate of human H3 strains seems to have decreased in recent years, while the reasons for the rate change need to be further explored.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.404
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations13
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntervirologySame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207