MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033481094 · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04068

Molecular characterization and three-dimensional structures of avian H8, H11, H14, H15 and swine H4 influenza virus hemagglutinins

2020· article· en· W3033481094 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hua Yang, P.J. Carney, Jessie Chang, James Stevens

Bibliographic record

VenueHeliyon · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArgonne National LaboratoryBasic Energy SciencesOffice of ScienceCenters for Disease Control and PreventionU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsVirologyHemagglutinin (influenza)BiologyVirusAvian influenza virusZoologyInfluenza A virus subtype H5N1

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Of the eighteen hemagglutinin (HA) subtypes (H1-H18) that have been identified in bats and aquatic birds, many HA subtypes have been structurally characterized. However, several subtypes (H8, H11 and H12) still require characterization. To better understand all of these HA subtypes at the molecular level, HA structures from an A(H4N6) (A/swine/Missouri/A01727926/2015), an A(H8N4) (A/turkey/Ontario/6118/1968), an A(H11N9) (A/duck/Memphis/546/1974), an A(H14N5) A/mallard/Gurjev/263/1982, and an A(H15N9) (A/wedge-tailed shearwater/Western Australia/2576/1979 were determined by X-ray crystallography at 2.2Å, 2.3Å, 2.8Å, 3.0Å and 2.5Å resolution, respectively. The interactions between these viruses and host receptors were studied utilizing glycan-binding analyses with their recombinant HA. The data show that all avian HAs retain their strict binding preference to avian receptors, whereas swine H4 has a weak human receptor binding. The molecular characterization and structural analyses of the HA from these zoonotic influenza viruses not only provide a deeper appreciation and understanding of the structure of all HA subtypes, but also re-iterate why continuous global surveillance is needed.

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 score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score0.655

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeliyonSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207