West Nile Virus Infection in Ruffed Grouse ( <i>Bonasa umbellus</i> ): Experimental Infection and Protective Effects of Vaccination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ruffed grouse ( Bonasa umbellus) population numbers in Pennsylvania dramatically declined during the early 2000s and have subsequently remained depressed throughout much of the state. While this decline has been temporally associated with the presence of West Nile virus (WNV), lack of information on the WNV susceptibility of this popular game bird species has limited the ability to interpret the potential impacts of WNV. To address this knowledge gap, virologic, immunologic, pathologic, and clinical responses as well as protective effects of vaccination following experimental WNV inoculation in ruffed grouse were assessed. Four of 10 (40%) naive, WNV-inoculated grouse succumbed to infection within 8 days and had moderate mean peak viremia titers (10 7.0 plaque-forming units [PFU]/ml serum); severe necrotizing myocarditis with widespread, corresponding immunohistochemical labeling; and minimal encephalitis. Grouse that survived to the prescribed end point of 14 days postinoculation (6/10; 60%) had slightly lower mean peak viremia titers (10 6.8 PFU/ml serum), moderate myocardial lesions, and more widespread brain lesions with rare corresponding immunohistochemical labeling. Vaccinated, WNV-inoculated birds ( n = 5) had lower mean peak viremia titers (10 3.6 PFU/ml serum) and minimal lesions, and sham-inoculated, in-contact control birds ( n = 3) had no evidence of infection. All surviving, inoculated birds seroconverted, and WNV-specific antibodies were detectable in serum and Nobuto filter paper strip–eluted blood samples. These data suggest that WNV could serve as an additional population pressure on ruffed grouse in regions where transmission levels are high and WNV competent, ornithophilic vectors exist.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".