MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2473232367 · doi:10.1099/jgv.0.000538

Genomic characterization of a novel poxvirus from a flying fox: evidence for a new genus?

2016· article· en· W2473232367 on OpenAlexaff
Mark O’Dea, Shin-Lin Tu, Stanley Pang, Thomas De Ridder, Bethany Jackson, Chris Upton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of General Virology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicRabies epidemiology and control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGenomeVirologyPoxviridaePolymerase chain reactionGeneGeneticsContigPhylogenetic treeDNA polymeraseDNA sequencingMitochondrial DNAgenomic DNAMolecular biologyVacciniaRecombinant DNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The carcass of an Australian little red flying fox (Pteropus scapulatus) which died following entrapment on a fence was submitted to the laboratory for Australian bat lyssavirus exclusion testing, which was negative. During post-mortem, multiple nodules were noted on the wing membranes, and therefore degenerate PCR primers targeting the poxvirus DNA polymerase gene were used to screen for poxviruses. The poxvirus PCR screen was positive and sequencing of the PCR product demonstrated very low, but significant, similarity with the DNA polymerase gene from members of the Poxviridae family. Next-generation sequencing of DNA extracted from the lesions returned a contig of 132 353 nucleotides (nt), which was further extended to produce a near full-length viral genome of 133 492 nt. Analysis of the genome revealed it to be AT-rich with inverted terminal repeats of at least 1314 nt and to contain 143 predicted genes. The genome contains a surprisingly large number (29) of genes not found in other poxviruses, one of which appears to be a homologue of the mammalian TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) gene. Phylogenetic analysis indicates that the poxvirus described here is not closely related to any other poxvirus isolated from bats or other species, and that it likely should be placed in a new genus.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of General VirologySame topicRabies epidemiology and controlFrench-language works237,207