Modulation of the Myxoma Virus Plaque Phenotype by Vaccinia Virus Protein F11
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vaccinia virus (VACV) produces large plaques consisting of a rapidly expanding ring of infected cells surrounding a lytic core, whereas myxoma virus (MYXV) produces small plaques that resemble a focus of transformed cells. This is odd, because bioinformatics suggests that MYXV carries homologs of nearly all of the genes regulating Orthopoxvirus attachment, entry, and exit. So why does MYXV produce foci? One notable difference is that MYXV-infected cells produce few of the actin microfilaments that promote VACV exit and spread. This suggested that although MYXV carries homologs of the required genes (A33R, A34R, A36R, and B5R), they are dysfunctional. To test this, we produced MYXV recombinants expressing these genes, but we could not enhance actin projectile formation even in cells expressing all four VACV proteins. Another notable difference between these viruses is that MYXV lacks a homolog of the F11L gene. F11 inhibits the RhoA-mDia signaling that maintains the integrity of the cortical actin layer. We constructed an MYXV strain encoding F11L and observed that, unlike wild-type MYXV, the recombinant virus disrupted actin stress fibers and produced plaques up to 4-fold larger than those of controls, and these plaques expanded ∼6-fold faster. These viruses also grew to higher titers in multistep growth conditions, produced higher levels of actin projectiles, and promoted infected cell movement, although neither process was to the extent of that observed in VACV-infected cells. Thus, one reason for why MYXV produces small plaques is that it cannot spread via actin filaments, although the reason for this deficiency remains obscure. A second reason is that leporipoxviruses lack vaccinia's capacity to disrupt cortical actin.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".