MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142586356 · doi:10.1128/jvi.00223-14

The Amphibian (Xenopus laevis) Type I Interferon Response to Frog Virus 3: New Insight into Ranavirus Pathogenicity

2014· article· en· W2142586356 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Leon Grayfer, Francisco De Jesús Andino, Jacques Robert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Virology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
Topicinterferon and immune responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaLife Sciences Research FoundationHoward Hughes Medical InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsRanavirusBiologyTadpole (physics)AmphibianIridovirusXenopusInterferonVirologyVirusAfrican clawed frogViral replicationMicrobiologyGeneEcologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: The increasing prevalence of ranavirus (RV; Iridoviridae) infections of wild and commercially maintained aquatic species is raising considerable concerns. While Xenopus laevis is the leading model for studies of immunity to RV, amphibian antiviral interferon (IFN) responses remain largely uncharacterized. Accordingly, an X. laevis type I interferon was identified, the expression of the gene for this IFN was examined in RV (frog virus 3 [FV3])-infected tadpoles and adult frogs by quantitative PCR, and a recombinant form of this molecule (recombinant X. laevis interferon [rXlIFN]) was produced for the purpose of functional studies. This rXlIFN protected the kidney-derived A6 cell line and tadpoles against FV3 infection, decreasing the infectious viral burdens in both cases. Adult frogs are naturally resistant to FV3 and clear the infection within a few weeks, whereas tadpoles typically succumb to this virus. Hence, as predicted, virus-infected adult X. laevis frogs exhibited significantly more robust FV3-elicited IFN gene expression than tadpoles; nevertheless, they also tolerated substantially greater viral burdens following infection. Although tadpole stimulation with rXlIFN prior to FV3 challenge markedly impaired viral replication and viral burdens, it only transiently extended tadpole survival and did not prevent the eventual mortality of these animals. Furthermore, histological analysis revealed that despite rXlIFN treatment, infected tadpoles had considerable organ damage, including disrupted tissue architecture and extensive necrosis and apoptosis. Conjointly, these findings indicate a critical protective role for the amphibian type I IFN response during ranaviral infections and suggest that these viruses are more pathogenic to tadpole hosts than was previously believed, causing extensive and fatal damage to multiple organs, even at very low titers. IMPORTANCE: Ranavirus infections are threatening wild and commercially maintained aquatic species. The amphibian Xenopus laevis is extensively utilized as an infection model for studying ranavirus-host immune interactions. However, little is known about amphibian antiviral immunity and, specifically, type I interferons (IFNs), which are central to the antiviral defenses of other vertebrates. Accordingly, we identified and characterized an X. laevis type I interferon in the context of infection with the ranavirus frog virus 3 (FV3). FV3-infected adult frogs displayed more robust IFN gene expression than tadpoles, possibly explaining why they typically clear FV3 infections, whereas tadpoles succumb to them. Pretreatment with a recombinant X. laevis IFN (rXlIFN) substantially reduced viral replication and infectious viral burdens in a frog kidney cell line and in tadpoles. Despite reducing FV3 loads and extending the mean survival time, rXlIFN treatments failed to prevent tadpole tissue damage and mortality. Thus, FV3 is more pathogenic than was previously believed, even at very low titers.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.250 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations90
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VirologySame topicinterferon and immune responsesFrench-language works237,207