MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2776598598 · doi:10.1111/avj.12659

Genome sequence of an Australian strain of <i>canid alphaherpesvirus 1</i>

2017· article· en· W2776598598 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Subir Sarker, Shubhagata Das, Karla J. Helbig, Andrew Peters, Shane Raidal

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Veterinary Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHerpesvirus Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo
KeywordsGenomeWhole genome sequencingBiologyPhylogenetic treeGeneticsStrain (injury)GeneDNA sequencing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Characterisation of a complete genome sequence of an Australian strain of canid alphaherpesvirus 1 (CHV-1) and its phylogenetic relationship with other varicellovirus species. METHODS: Standard pathology and PCR methods were used to initially detect herpesvirus in hepatic tissue from an infected 4-week-old Labrador Retriever puppy. The complete CHV-1 genome was sequenced using next-generation sequencing technology followed by de novo and reference assembly, and genome annotation. RESULTS: The CHV-1 genome was 125 kbp in length and contained 74 predicted open reading frames encoding functional proteins, all of which have counterparts in other alphaherpesviruses. Phylogenetic analysis using the DNA polymerase gene revealed that the newly sequenced CHV-1 clustered with canid alphaherpesvirus isolated from the UK and shared a 99% overall nucleotide sequence similarity. CONCLUSION: This is the first complete genome of an Australian strain of CHV-1, which will contribute to our understanding of the genetics and evolution of herpesvirus.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations27
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Veterinary JournalSame topicHerpesvirus Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207