MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046992040 · doi:10.1073/pnas.2008191117

Molecular biology and structure of a novel penaeid shrimp densovirus elucidate convergent parvoviral host capsid evolution

2020· article· en· W3046992040 on OpenAlexafffund
Judit J. Pénzes, Hanh Thi Pham, Paul R. Chipman, Nilakshee Bhattacharya, Robert McKenna, Mavis Agbandje‐McKenna, Peter Tijssen

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicInvertebrate Immune Response Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of HealthCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyCapsidEvolutionary biologyConvergent evolutionVirologyCell biologyPhylogeneticsVirusGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significance Parvoviruses (PVs) are ssDNA viruses, with T = 1 icosahedral symmetry, infecting deuterostome and protostome animals. Most PVs have a highly conserved phospholipase A2 domain (PLA2) in the N-terminal region of their minor capsid protein. Under acidic pH, during endosomal/lysosomal egress, the PLA2 domain is activated to disrupt vesicle membranes. However, certain PVs lack the PLA2 and thus must use a different escape mechanism. Our study offers insight into this enigma, showing how a recently discovered PV of marine crustacean has evolved a cation-dependent mechanism to accomplish this task. We also show how host-driven convergent evolution pushed two PVs, infecting the same host species, to adopt strikingly similar surface morphologies, despite distinct multimer interactions and lack of sequence similarity.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicInvertebrate Immune Response MechanismsFrench-language works237,207