Genomic characterization of a novel poxvirus from a flying fox: evidence for a new genus?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".