MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Poxvirus Immunomodulatory Strategies: Current Perspectives

2003· review· en· W2132414631 on OpenAlexaff
James B. Johnston, Grant McFadden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Virology · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPoxvirus research and outbreaks
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyInnate immune systemGenomeVirusImmune systemVirologyGeneChemokineGeneticsImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Successful transmission by viruses in the face of vigorous innate and acquired host immunity requires the ability to evade, obstruct, or subvert critical elements that mediate host antiviral responses. To that end, viruses with larger genomes, such as poxviruses, encode multiple classes of immunomodulatory proteins that have evolved specifically to inhibit such diverse processes as apoptosis, the production of interferons, chemokines, and inflammatory cytokines, and the activity of cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs), natural killer (NK) cells, complement, and antibodies. Often, the evolutionary origins of these virus-encoded immunomodulatory proteins are difficult to trace. The obvious sequence similarity between some immunomodulatory poxvirus genes and the cDNA versions of related cellular counterparts suggests that they were once captured by ancestral retrotranscription and/or recombination events and then reassorted into individual virus isolates during coevolution with vertebrate hosts. However, other poxviral immunomodulators have no known cellular counterpart or have putative functions that cannot be predicted based on similarity to known cellular proteins. The origins of these orphan regulators may be obscure, but their potential for immune subversion can be profound.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Citations175
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VirologySame topicPoxvirus research and outbreaksFrench-language works237,207