[Phylogenetic analysis based on hemagglutinin and neuraminidase genes between swine influenza virus and human influenza A/H3N2 virus strains isolated in Zhejiang province].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the phylogenetic relationship between swine influenza A/H3N2 virus and the representative strains of human influenza A/H3N2 virus isolated in two epidemics in recent years through comparing the sequences within HA and NA genes. METHODS: HA and NA gene of the human representative strains were sequenced, and then phylogenetic tree with the swine and human strains isolated in the corresponding period of time were constructed. RESULTS: The homologies on the HA1 domain between human representative strains (A/Zhejiang/10/98, A/Zhejiang/6/99 and A/Zhejiang/8/02)and the swine strains (A/SW/Ontario/130/97, A/SW/Hongkong/4361/99 and A/SW/Hongkong/74/02) were 99.1%, 99.4% and 99.4% respectively. Based on the NA gene, the homologies between human strains (A/Zhejiang/10/98, _A/Zhejiang/6/99 and A/Zhejiang/8/02)and the swine strains (A/SW/Ontario/130/97, A/SW/Hongkong/4361/99 and A/SW/Hongkong/74/02) were 98.2%, 99.3% and 99.3% respectively. The results showed that the two types of influenza viruses were highly homologue, and even some of their homologies were higher than that amongst the contemporary human influenza A/H3N2 strains. The same results shown in the phylogenetic tree. CONCLUSIONS: The human influenza A/H3N2 virus isolates in the two epidemic closely associated with some of the swine influenza virus strains, and their relationship should be further studied.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".