Bunyavirus Taxonomy: Limitations and Misconceptions Associated with the Current ICTV Criteria Used for Species Demarcation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) has implemented numerous changes to the taxonomic classification of bunyaviruses over the years. Whereas most changes have been justified and necessary because of the need to accommodate newly discovered and unclassified viruses, other changes are a cause of concern, especially the decision to demote scores of formerly recognized species to essentially strains of newly designated species. This practice was first described in the seventh taxonomy report of the ICTV and has continued in all subsequent reports. In some instances, viruses that share less than 75% nucleotide sequence identity across their genomes, produce vastly different clinical presentations, possess distinct vector and host associations, have different biosafety recommendations, and occur in nonoverlapping geographic regions are classified as strains of the same species. Complicating the matter is the fact that virus strains have been completely eliminated from ICTV reports; thus, critically important information on virus identities and their associated biological and epidemiological features cannot be readily related to the ICTV classification. Here, we summarize the current status of bunyavirus taxonomy and discuss the adverse consequences associated with the reclassification and resulting omission of numerous viruses of public health importance from ICTV reports. As members of the American Committee on Arthropod-borne Viruses, we encourage the ICTV Bunyavirus Study Group to reconsider their stance on bunyavirus taxonomy, to revise the criteria currently used for species demarcation, and to list additional strains of public and veterinary importance.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".