MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117913546 · doi:10.1089/vbz.2011.0766

Tick Cell Lines for Study of Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever Virus and Other Arboviruses

2011· review· en· W2117913546 on OpenAlexaff
Lesley Bell‐Sakyi, Alain Kohl, Dennis A. Bente, John K. Fazakerley

Bibliographic record

VenueVector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Vectors
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilWellcome Trust
KeywordsTickArbovirusVirologyBiologyRhipicephalusRhipicephalus sanguineusVector (molecular biology)VirusMicrobiologyIxodidae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuous cell lines derived from many of the vectors of tick-borne arboviruses of medical and veterinary importance are now available. Their role as tools in arbovirus research to date is reviewed and their potential application in studies of tick cell responses to virus infection is explored, by comparison with recent progress in understanding mosquito immunity to arbovirus infection. A preliminary study of propagation of the human pathogen Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus (CCHFV) in tick cell lines is reported; CCHFV replicated in seven cell lines derived from the ticks Hyalomma anatolicum (a known vector), Amblyomma variegatum, Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) decoloratus, Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus, and Ixodes ricinus, but not in three cell lines derived from Rhipicephalus appendiculatus and Ornithodoros moubata. This indicates that tick cell lines can be used to study growth of CCHFV in arthropod cells and that there may be species-specific restriction in permissive CCHFV infection at the cellular level.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations65
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVector-Borne and Zoonotic DiseasesSame topicViral Infections and VectorsFrench-language works237,207