Low intraspecific variation of Frog virus 3 with evidence for novel FV3-like isolates in central and northwestern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frog virus 3 (FV3) and FV3-like ranaviruses can infect a variety of cold-blooded aquatic species and present a primary threat to amphibians across the globe. Previous studies of FV3-like viruses have largely investigated higher-level phylogenetic distinctions of these pathogens via portions of the conserved major capsid protein (MCP), and the putative virulence gene vIF-2α. Few studies, however, have investigated the spatial distribution of FV3 variants at the population level3-data that can be used to further understand the spatial epidemiology of this disease. In this study, we sequenced the MCP and vIF-2α of 127 FV3-positive amphibians sampled from Canadian water bodies in Ontario, northeastern Alberta, and southern Northwest Territories to explore whether intraspecific genetic variation exists within FV3. There was a lack of variation at the 2 markers across these regions, suggesting that there is a lack of FV3 sequence diversity in Canada, which may hint at a single source of infection that has spread. However, an undocumented variant termed Wood Buffalo ranavirus (WBRV) was detected in samples from 3 sites in Alberta and Northwest Territories that clustered within the FV3-like lineage with 99.3% sequence homology for MCP. For vIF-2α, all sequences were the expected truncated variant except for 6 samples in Ontario. These latter sequences were suggestive of recombination with common midwife toad virus (CMTV). The lack of variation suggests that higher-resolution genome analyses will be required to further explore the spatial spread and intraspecific variation of the disease.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".