MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910974671 · doi:10.3390/v11010066

Expanding Repertoire of Plant Positive-Strand RNA Virus Proteases

2019· review· en· W2910974671 on OpenAlexafffund
Krin S. Mann, Hélène Sanfaçon

Bibliographic record

VenueViruses · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsProteasesBiologyProteaseRNANS2-3 proteasePolyproteinsVirusTMPRSS6Deubiquitinating enzymeRNA virusCysteine proteaseBiochemistrySerine proteaseVirologyEnzymeGeneUbiquitin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many plant viruses express their proteins through a polyprotein strategy, requiring the acquisition of protease domains to regulate the release of functional mature proteins and/or intermediate polyproteins. Positive-strand RNA viruses constitute the vast majority of plant viruses and they are diverse in their genomic organization and protein expression strategies. Until recently, proteases encoded by positive-strand RNA viruses were described as belonging to two categories: (1) chymotrypsin-like cysteine and serine proteases and (2) papain-like cysteine protease. However, the functional characterization of plant virus cysteine and serine proteases has highlighted their diversity in terms of biological activities, cleavage site specificities, regulatory mechanisms, and three-dimensional structures. The recent discovery of a plant picorna-like virus glutamic protease with possible structural similarities with fungal and bacterial glutamic proteases also revealed new unexpected sources of protease domains. We discuss the variety of plant positive-strand RNA virus protease domains. We also highlight possible evolution scenarios of these viral proteases, including evidence for the exchange of protease domains amongst unrelated viruses.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations35
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVirusesSame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207