Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Plant viruses infect almost all crops and cause serious diseases worldwide. Currently, viral pathogens account for the largest proportion of newly emerging plant diseases and as such, are considered a major constraint to agriculture, threatening global food security. All plant viruses have relatively small genomes with limited coding capacity. They must co‐opt cellular pathways and recruit host proteins and metabolites to complete their infection cycle. To combat virus infection, plants have evolved sophisticated defence mechanisms. In order to establish infection, viruses have also evolved virulence strategies to suppress host defence. A successful infection by a plant virus requires compatible molecular interplays between the host plant and the invading virus. A better understanding of the complex virus–plant interactions will assist in the development of novel antiviral strategies. Key Concepts Plant viruses have small genomes that encode a few proteins and thus depend on host factors to establish their infection. There exist multifaceted defence and counterdefence strategies in the coevolutionary arms race between plants and viruses. A successful viral infection may induce disease symptoms or remain asymptomatic. Host factors are implicated in all steps of the viral infection process, and silencing or mutation of host factor gene(s) leads to recessive genetic resistance to viruses. The majority host factors are also essential for plant viability and some of them may be manipulated to develop genetic resistance through precise mutation to retain their canonical cellular functions but lose the ability to support viral infection.
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) | 0.004 | 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".