MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794765381 · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03658-2

Beclin1 restricts RNA virus infection in plants through suppression and degradation of the viral polymerase

2018· article· en· W2794765381 on OpenAlexafffund
Fangfang Li, Changwei Zhang, Yinzi Li, Guanwei Wu, Xilin Hou, Xueping Zhou, Aiming Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutophagy in Disease and Therapy
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaWestern University
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTsinghua University
KeywordsAutophagyViral replicationBiologyVirologyRNAPolymeraseViral proteinViral entryCell biologyVirusRNA-dependent RNA polymeraseRNA virusViral structural proteinRNA polymeraseGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autophagy emerges as an essential immunity defense against intracellular pathogens. Here we report that turnip mosaic virus (TuMV) infection activates autophagy in plants and that Beclin1 (ATG6), a core component of autophagy, inhibits virus replication. Beclin1 interacts with NIb, the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) of TuMV, via the highly conserved GDD motif and the interaction complex is targeted for autophagic degradation likely through the adaptor protein ATG8a. Beclin1-mediated NIb degradation is inhibited by autophagy inhibitors. Deficiency of Beclin1 or ATG8a enhances NIb accumulation and promotes viral infection and vice versa. These data suggest that Beclin1 may be a selective autophagy receptor. Overexpression of a Beclin1 truncation mutant that binds to NIb but lacks the ability to mediate NIb degradation also inhibits virus replication. The Beclin1-RdRp interaction further extends to several RNA viruses. Thus Beclin1 restricts viral infection through suppression and also likely autophagic degradation of the viral RdRp.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.319 · 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.

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

Citations199
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicAutophagy in Disease and TherapyFrench-language works237,207