MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735194366 · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-05824-w

Cryo-EM reconstruction of the Cafeteria roenbergensis virus capsid suggests novel assembly pathway for giant viruses

2017· article· en· W2735194366 on OpenAlexafffund
Chuan Xiao, Matthias Fischer, Duer Bolotaulo, Nancy Ulloa-Rondeau, Gustavo Ávila‐Ortiz, Curtis A. Suttle

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersBritish Columbia Knowledge Development FundNational Science FoundationUniversity of Texas at El PasoUniversity of British ColumbiaPurdue UniversityMax-Planck-Gesellschaft
KeywordsCapsidCapsomereVirusGiant VirusBiologyCryo-electron microscopyVertex (graph theory)VirologyBiophysicsCell biologyGeneticsComputer scienceGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whereas the protein composition and overall shape of several giant virus capsids have been described, the mechanism by which these large capsids assemble remains enigmatic. Here, we present a reconstruction of the capsid of Cafeteria roenbergensis virus (CroV), one of the largest viruses analyzed by cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) to date. The CroV capsid has a diameter of 3,000 Å and a Triangulation number of 499. Unlike related mimiviruses, the CroV capsid is not decorated with glycosylated surface fibers, but features 30 Å-long surface protrusions that are formed by loops of the major capsid protein. Based on the orientation of capsomers in the cryo-EM reconstruction, we propose that the capsids of CroV and related giant viruses are assembled by a newly conceived assembly pathway that initiates at a five-fold vertex and continuously proceeds outwards in a spiraling fashion.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
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 head0.282
Teacher spread0.220 · 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.

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

Citations53
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207