MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dissecting the Molecular Network of Virus-Plant Interactions: The Complex Roles of Host Factors

2015· review· en· W2119477250 on OpenAlexafffund
Aiming Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Phytopathology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyPlasmodesmaHost (biology)Plant virusVirusComputational biologyVirologyHost factorsGenomeGeneticsGeneCell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A successful infection by a plant virus results from the complex molecular interplay between the host plant and the invading virus. Thus, dissecting the molecular network of virus-host interactions advances the understanding of the viral infection process and may assist in the development of novel antiviral strategies. In the past decade, molecular identification and functional characterization of host factors in the virus life cycle, particularly single-stranded, positive-sense RNA viruses, have been a research focus in plant virology. As a result, a number of host factors have been identified. These host factors are implicated in all the major steps of the infection process. Some host factors are diverted for the viral genome translation, some are recruited to improvise the viral replicase complexes for genome multiplication, and others are components of transport complexes for cell-to-cell spread via plasmodesmata and systemic movement through the phloem. This review summarizes current knowledge about host factors and discusses future research directions.

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)0.000
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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations351
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of PhytopathologySame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207