MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3090693048 · doi:10.3390/antibiotics9100663

From Orphan Phage to a Proposed New Family–The Diversity of N4-Like Viruses

2020· article· en· W3090693048 on OpenAlexaff
Johannes Wittmann, Dann Turner, Andrew Millard, Padmanabhan Mahadevan, Andrew M. Kropinski, Evelien M. Adriaenssens

Bibliographic record

VenueAntibiotics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicBacteriophages and microbial interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersMedical Research CouncilBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilDirectorate for Biological Sciences
KeywordsGenomeBiologyVirus classificationBacterial virusComputational biologyGeneticsVirologyBacteriophageGeneEscherichia coli

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Escherichia phage N4 was isolated in 1966 in Italy and has remained a genomic orphan for a long time. It encodes an extremely large virion-associated RNA polymerase unique for bacterial viruses that became characteristic for this group. In recent years, due to new and relatively inexpensive sequencing techniques the number of publicly available phage genome sequences expanded rapidly. This revealed new members of the N4-like phage group, from 33 members in 2015 to 115 N4-like viruses in 2020. Using new technologies and methods for classification, the Bacterial and Archaeal Viruses Subcommittee of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) has moved the classification and taxonomy of bacterial viruses from mere morphological approaches to genomic and proteomic methods. The analysis of 115 N4-like genomes resulted in a huge reassessment of this group and the proposal of a new family “Schitoviridae”, including eight subfamilies and numerous new genera.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations79
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntibioticsSame topicBacteriophages and microbial interactionsFrench-language works237,207