Variation in porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus open reading frame 5 diagnostic sequencing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) open reading frame 5 (ORF5) sequencing variation, within and among state diagnostic laboratories, that may contribute to observed differences in sequence homology among isolates. Materials and methods: PRRS virus-positive blood samples were collected from individual pigs on three different farms and submitted on three independent occasions to three diagnostic laboratories for PRRSV ORF5 nucleotide sequencing. The PRRSV isolates on each farm were genetically disparate. Vaccine viruses (Ingelvac PRRS MLV and Ingelvac PRRS ATP; Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc, St Joseph, Missouri) were submitted as positive controls. Results: Full-length ORF5 sequences were obtained from all samples. Positive-control vaccine virus sequencing was precise and highly accurate, with all laboratories on all occasions obtaining nearly identical sequences. The analytical specificity of field PRRSV sequencing was robust, with a median variation among laboratories for the same farm sample, across all pigs and submission dates, of one base difference per 603-base sequence (0.2%). Seventy-five percent of sequences had fewer than six base differences, and the greatest difference was 2.2%. However, 16% of samples in one submission from one farm appeared to be misidentified in the reports of one laboratory. Implications: Inter- and intra-laboratory ORF5 sequencing results are reproducible, reliable, and do not contribute significantly to estimated PRRSV diversity. Tracking errors may occur which can lead to confusion or inappropriate reaction by key decision makers. Submitters should retain aliquots of all samples to enable further investigation of a diagnostic error not related to the sequencing procedure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".