Using viromes to predict novel immune proteins in non-model organisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immunity is mostly studied in a few model organisms, leaving the majority of immune systems on the planet unexplored. To characterize the immune systems of non-model organisms alternative approaches are required. Viruses manipulate host cell biology through the expression of proteins that modulate the immune response. We hypothesized that metagenomic sequencing of viral communities would be useful to identify both known and unknown host immune proteins. To test this hypothesis, a mock human virome was generated and compared to the human proteome using tBLASTn, resulting in 36 proteins known to be involved in immunity. This same pipeline was then applied to reef-building coral, a non-model organism that currently lacks traditional molecular tools like transgenic animals, gene-editing capabilities, and in vitro cell cultures. Viromes isolated from corals and compared with the predicted coral proteome resulted in 2503 coral proteins, including many proteins involved with pathogen sensing and apoptosis. There were also 159 coral proteins predicted to be involved with coral immunity but currently lacking any functional annotation. The pipeline described here provides a novel method to rapidly predict host immune components that can be applied to virtually any system with the potential to discover novel immune proteins.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".