Prophage Provide a Safe Haven for Adaptive Exploration in Temperate Viruses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prophage sequences constitute a substantial fraction of the temperate virus gene pool. Although subject to mutational decay, prophage sequences can also be an important source of adaptive mutations for these viral populations. Here we develop a life-history model for temperate viruses, including both the virulent (lytic) and the temperate phases of the life cycle. We then examine the survival of mutations that increase fitness during the lytic phase (attachment rate, burst size), increase fitness in the temperate phase (increasing host survival), or affect transitions between the two phases (integration or induction probability). We find that beneficial mutations are much more likely to survive, ultimately, if they first occur in the prophage state. This conclusion applies even to traits that are only expressed during the lytic phase, and arises due to the substantially lower variance in the offspring distribution during the temperate cycle. This observation, however, is balanced by the fact that many more mutations can be generated during lytic replication. Overall we predict that the prophage state provides a refuge, relatively shielded from genetic drift, in which temperate viruses can explore possible adaptive steps.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".