MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118764989 · doi:10.1104/pp.105.064105

Plant Virus RNAs. Coordinated Recruitment of Conserved Host Functions by (+) ssRNA Viruses during Early Infection Events

2005· review· en· W2118764989 on OpenAlexaff
Karine Thivierge, Valérie Nicaise, Philippe J. Dufresne, Sophie Cotton, Jean‐François Laliberté, Olivier Le Gall, Marc Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenuePLANT PHYSIOLOGY · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyRNATranslation (biology)Viral replicationRibonucleoproteinVirologyGeneticsCell biologyComputational biologyVirusMessenger RNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Positive-sense single-stranded RNA viruses have developed strategies to exploit cellular resources at the expense of host mRNAs. The genomes of these viruses display a variety of structures at their 5' and 3' ends that differentiate them from cellular mRNAs. Despite this structural diversity, viral RNAs are still circularized by juxtaposition of their 5' and 3' ends, similar to the process used by cellular mRNAs. Also reminiscent of the mechanisms used by host mRNAs, translation of viral RNAs involves the recruitment of translation initiation factors. However, the roles played by these factors likely differ from those played by cellular mRNAs. In keeping with the general parsimony typical of RNA viruses, these host factors also participate in viral RNA replication. However, the dual use of host factors requires that viral RNA template utilization be regulated to avoid conflict between replication and translation. The molecular composition of the large ribonucleoprotein complexes that form the viral RNA replication and translation machineries likely evolves over the course of infection to allow for switching template use from translation to replication.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 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

Citations56
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLANT PHYSIOLOGYSame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207