MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161610740 · doi:10.1099/0022-1317-83-10-2411

Sequence of the 3′-terminal end (8·1 kb) of the genome of porcine haemagglutinating encephalomyelitis virus: comparison with other haemagglutinating coronaviruses

2002· article· en· W2161610740 on OpenAlexaffabout
A. Marie-Josée Sasseville, Martine Boutin, Anne-Marie Gélinas, S. Dea

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of General Virology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Virus Infections Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirologyBiologyEncephalomyelitisGenomeVirusCoronavirusWhole genome sequencingCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)GeneticsGeneImmunologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A cytopathogenic coronavirus, serologically identified as porcine haemagglutinating encephalomyelitis virus (HEV), has recently been associated with acute outbreaks of wasting and encephalitis in nursing piglets from pig farms in southern Québec and Ontario, Canada. The 3'-terminal end of the genome of the prototype HEV-67N strain and that of the recent Québec IAF-404 field isolate, both propagated in HRT-18 cells, were sequenced. Overall, sequencing data indicated that HEV has remained antigenically and genetically stable since its first isolation in North America in 1962. Compared with the prototype strain of bovine enteropathogenic coronavirus (BCoV), HEV, as well as the human respiratory coronavirus (HCoV-OC43) showed a major deletion in their ORF4 gene. Deduced amino acid sequences for both HEV strains revealed 89/88, 80, 93/92 and 95/94% identities with the structural proteins HE, S, M and N of BCoV and HCoV-OC43, respectively. Major variations were observed in the S1 portion of the S gene of both HEV strains, with only 73/71% amino acid identities compared with those of the two other haemagglutinating coronaviruses.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations27
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of General VirologySame topicAnimal Virus Infections StudiesFrench-language works237,207