Emerging translation strategies during virus–host interaction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Translation control is crucial during virus-host interaction. On one hand, viruses completely rely on the protein synthesis machinery of host cells to propagate and have evolved various mechanisms to redirect the host's ribosomes toward their viral mRNAs. On the other hand, the host rewires its translation program in an attempt to contain and suppress the virus early on during infection; the antiviral program includes specific control on protein synthesis to translate several antiviral mRNAs involved in quenching the infection. As the infection progresses, host translation is in turn inhibited in order to limit viral propagation. We have learnt of very diverse strategies that both parties utilize to gain or retain control over the protein synthesis machinery. Yet novel strategies continue to be discovered, attesting for the importance of mRNA translation in virus-host interaction. This review focuses on recently described translation strategies employed by both hosts and viruses. These discoveries provide additional pieces in the understanding of the complex virus-host translation landscape. This article is categorized under: Translation > Translation Mechanisms Translation > Translation Regulation.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it