MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088813247 · doi:10.3390/v12101096

Chicken Astrovirus (CAstV) Molecular Studies Reveal Evidence of Multiple Past Recombination Events in Sequences Originated from Clinical Samples of White Chick Syndrome (WCS) in Western Canada

2020· article· en· W3088813247 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Victor Palomino-Tapia, Darko Mitevski, Tom Inglis, Frank van der Meer, Emily Martin, Marina L. Brash, Chantale Provost, Carl A. Gagnon, Mohamed Faizal Abdul-Careem

Bibliographic record

VenueViruses · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Calgary
FundersMitacsAlberta Agriculture and Forestry
KeywordsBiologyGenBankRecombinationGeneticsPhylogenetic treeAstrovirusGenomeWhole genome sequencingVirologyGeneVirusNorovirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we aimed to molecularly characterize 14 whole genome sequences of chicken astrovirus (CAstV) isolated from samples obtained from white chick syndrome (WCS) outbreaks in Western Canada during the period of 2014-2019. Genome sequence comparisons showed all these sequences correspond to the novel Biv group from which no confirmed representatives were published in GenBank. Molecular recombination analyses using recombination detection software (i.e., RDP5 and SimPlot) and phylogenetic analyses suggest multiple past recombination events in open reading frame (ORF)1a, ORF1b, and ORF2. Our findings suggest that recombination events and the accumulation of point mutations may have contributed to the substantial genetic variation observed in CAstV and evidenced by the current seven antigenic sub-clusters hitherto described. This is the first paper that describes recombination events in CAstV following analysis of complete CAstV sequences originated in Canada.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations36
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVirusesSame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207