Construction and Analysis of Alphaherpesviruses Expressing Green Fluorescent Protein
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past 10 years, the use of fluorescently tagged herpesviruses has evolved from relative obscurity into a common component in the arsenal of many molecular herpesvirology laboratories. In this chapter we provide methods for construction and analysis of recombinant alphaherpesviruses using conventional co-transfection and homologous recombination procedures. In recent years many herpesviruses have been cloned into bacterial artificial chromosomes (BACs), which has facilitated their manipulation by sophisticated bacterial molecular genetic techniques [Messerle, M., Crnkovic, I., Hammerschmidt, W., Ziegler, H., and Koszinowski, U. H. (1997) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94,14759-63; Smith, G. A., and Enquist, L. W. (2000) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97,4873-8; Tischer, B. K., von Einem, J., Kaufer, B., and Osterrieder, N. (2006) Biotechniques 40,191-7]. These technological breakthroughs have allowed for the genetic analysis of virus gene products, including those that are essential for virus replication, with unprecedented ease. The main caveat to this approach is that one requires their virus strain of interest cloned into a BAC. If the virus strain under consideration has not been introduced into a BAC, it is far from trivial to do so. While comparatively antiquated, the procedures provided in this article can be used with any strain. Here we focus on pseudorabies virus (PRV), a swine pathogen, which is the alphaherpesvirus most amenable to genetic manipulation using this transfection-based approach.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".