MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2409720676

Equid herpesvirus 9 (EHV-9) isolates from zebras in Ontario, Canada, 1989 to 2007.

2015· article· en· W2409720676 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rebelo Ar, Jan Shapiro, van Dreumel T, Murray Hazlett, Éva Nagy

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHerpesvirus Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPolymerase chain reactionRestriction fragment length polymorphismMolecular biologyGenegenomic DNAVirologyPhylogenetic treeDNAVirusPolymeraseGenetics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to identify and partially characterize 3 equid herpesviruses that were isolated postmortem from zebras in Ontario, Canada in 1989, 2002, and 2007. These 3 virus isolates were characterized by plaque morphology, restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) of their genomic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay, and sequence analyses of the full length of the glycoprotein G (gG) gene (ORF70) and a portion of the DNA polymerase gene (ORF30). The isolates were also compared to 3 reference strains of equid herpesvirus 1 (EHV-1). Using rabbit kidney cells, the plaques for the isolates from the zebras were found to be much larger in size than the EHV-1 reference strains. The RFLP patterns of the zebra viruses differed among each other and from those of the EHV-1 reference strains. Real-time PCR and sequence analysis of a portion of the DNA polymerase gene determined that the herpesvirus isolates from the zebras contained a G at nucleotide 2254 and a corresponding N at amino acid position 752, which suggested that they could be neuropathogenic EHV-1 strains. However, subsequent phylogenetic analysis of the gG gene suggested that they were EHV-9 and not EHV-1.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicHerpesvirus Infections and Treatments→French-language works237,207→