MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152612994 · doi:10.1128/jvi.00022-14

Genome Scale Patterns of Recombination between Coinfecting Vaccinia Viruses

2014· article· en· W2152612994 on OpenAlexafffund
Li Qin, David H. Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Virology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPoxvirus research and outbreaks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Cancer Foundation
KeywordsBiologyVacciniaRecombinationVirologyGenomeGeneticsViral evolutionScale (ratio)GeneRecombinant DNAPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Recombination plays a critical role in virus evolution. It helps avoid genetic decline and creates novel phenotypes. This promotes survival, and genome sequencing suggests that recombination has facilitated the evolution of human pathogens, including orthopoxviruses such as variola virus. Recombination can also be used to map genes, but although recombinant poxviruses are easily produced in culture, classical attempts to map the vaccinia virus (VACV) genome this way met with little success. We have sequenced recombinants formed when VACV strains TianTan and Dryvax are crossed under different conditions. These were a single round of growth in coinfected cells, five rounds of sequential passage, or recombinants obtained using leporipoxvirus-mediated DNA reactivation. Our studies showed that recombinants contain a patchwork of DNA, with the number of exchanges increasing with passage. Further passage also selected for TianTan DNA and correlated with increased plaque size. The recombinants produced through a single round of coinfection contain a disproportionate number of short conversion tracks (<1 kbp) and exhibited 1 exchange per 12 kbp, close to the ∼1 per 8 kbp in the literature. One by-product of this study was that rare mutations were also detected; VACV replication produces ∼1×10(-8) mutation per nucleotide copied per cycle of replication and ∼1 large (21 kbp) deletion per 70 rounds of passage. Viruses produced using DNA reactivation appeared no different from recombinants produced using ordinary methods. An attractive feature of this approach is that when it is combined with selection for a particular phenotype, it provides a way of mapping and dissecting more complex virus traits. IMPORTANCE: When two closely related viruses coinfect the same cell, they can swap genetic information through a process called recombination. Recombination produces new viruses bearing different combinations of genes, and it plays an important role in virus evolution. Poxviruses are a family of viruses that includes variola (or smallpox) virus, and although poxviruses are known to recombine, no one has previously mapped the patterns of DNAs exchanged between viruses. We coinfected cells with two different vaccinia poxviruses, isolated the progeny, and sequenced them. We show that poxvirus recombination is a very accurate process that assembles viruses containing DNA copied from both parents. In a single round of infection, DNA is swapped back and forth ∼18 times per genome to make recombinant viruses that are a mosaic of the two parental DNAs. This mixes many different genes in complex combinations and illustrates how recombination can produce viruses with greatly altered disease potential.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations54
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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