Transmission of Cricket paralysis virus via exosome-like vesicles during infection of Drosophila cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Viruses are classically characterized as being either enveloped or nonenveloped depending on the presence or absence of a lipid bi-layer surrounding their proteinaceous capsid. In recent years, many studies have challenged this view by demonstrating that some nonenveloped viruses (e.g. hepatitis A virus) can acquire an envelope during infection by hijacking host cellular pathways. In this study, we examined the role of exosome-like vesicles (ELVs) during infection of Drosophilia melanogaster S2 cells by Cricket paralysis virus (CrPV). Utilizing quantitative proteomics, we demonstrated that ELVs can be isolated from both mock- and CrPV-infected S2 cells that contain distinct set of proteins compared to the cellular proteome. Moreover, 40 proteins increased in abundance in ELVs derived from CrPV-infected cells compared to mock, suggesting specific factors associate with ELVs during infection. Interestingly, peptides from CrPV capsid proteins (ORF2) and viral RNA were detected in ELVs from infected cells. Finally, ELVs from CrPV-infected cells are infectious suggesting that CrPV may hijack ELVs to acquire an envelope during infection of S2 cells. This study further demonstrates the diverse strategies of nonenveloped viruses from invertebrates to vertebrates to acquire an envelope in order to evade the host response or facilitate transmission.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".