The genetic diversity of Epstein–Barr virus in the setting of transplantation relative to non‐transplant settings: A feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines EBV strains from transplant patients and patients with IM by sequencing major EBV genes. We also used NGS to detect EBV DNA within total genomic DNA, and to evaluate its genetic variation. Sanger sequencing of major EBV genes was used to compare SNVs from samples taken from transplant patients vs. patients with IM. We sequenced EBV DNA from a healthy EBV-seropositive individual on a HiSeq 2000 instrument. Data were mapped to the EBV reference genomes (AG876 and B95-8). The number of EBNA2 SNVs was higher than for EBNA1 and the other genes sequenced within comparable reference coordinates. For EBNA2, there was a median of 15 SNV among transplant samples compared with 10 among IM samples (p = 0.036). EBNA1 showed little variation between samples. For NGS, we identified 640 and 892 variants at an unadjusted p value of 5 × 10(-8) for AG876 and B95-8 genomes, respectively. We used complementary sequence strategies to examine EBV genetic diversity and its application to transplantation. The results provide the framework for further characterization of EBV strains and related outcomes after organ transplantation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".