MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2983239681 · doi:10.1128/jvi.01439-19

Near-Atomic-Resolution Cryo-Electron Microscopy Structures of Cucumber Leaf Spot Virus and Red Clover Necrotic Mosaic Virus: Evolutionary Divergence at the Icosahedral Three-Fold Axes

2019· article· en· W2983239681 on OpenAlexaff
Michael B. Sherman, Richard Guenther, Ron Reade, D’Ann Rochon, Tim L. Sit, Thomas J. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Virology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of Texas at AustinUniversity of Texas Medical BranchNational Institute of General Medical SciencesDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas at AustinNorth Carolina State University
KeywordsBiologyIcosahedral symmetryElectron microscopeCryo-electron microscopyVirusDivergence (linguistics)Plant virusVirologyBiophysicsCrystallographyOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

family have nearly identical shells, and yet they package genomes that range from 4.6 kb (monopartite) to 5.3 kb (bipartite) in size. To understand how this genome flexibility occurs within a rigidly conserved shell, we determined the high-resolution cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) structures of cucumber leaf spot virus and red clover necrotic mosaic virus. In response to genomic size differences, it appears that the ssRNA binding (R) domain of the capsid diverged evolutionarily in order to recognize the different genomes. The next region, the "arm," seems to have also coevolved with the R domain to allow particle assembly via interactions at the icosahedral 3-fold axes. In addition, there are differences at the icosahedral 3-fold axes with regard to metal binding that are likely important for transmission and the viral life cycle.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VirologySame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207