In Vitro and In Ovo Host Restriction of Aquatic Bird Bornavirus 1 in Different Avian Hosts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aquatic bird bornavirus 1 (ABBV-1) is associated with chronic meningoencephalitis and ganglioneuritis. Although waterfowl species act as the natural host of ABBV-1, the virus has been sporadically isolated from other avian species, showing the potential for a broad host range. To evaluate the host restriction of ABBV-1, and its potential to infect commercial poultry species, we assessed the ability of ABBV-1 to replicate in cells and embryos of different avian species. ABBV-1 replication was measured using multi- and single-step growth curves in primary embryo fibroblasts of chicken, duck, and goose. Embryonated chicken and duck eggs were infected through either the yolk sac or chorioallantoic cavity, and virus replication was assessed by immunohistochemistry and RT-qPCR in embryonic tissues harvested at two time points after infection. Multi-step growth curves showed that ABBV-1 replicated and spread in goose and duck embryo fibroblasts, establishing a population of persistently infected cells, while it was unable to do so in chicken fibroblasts. Single-step growth curves showed that cells from all three species could be infected; however, persistence was only established in goose and duck fibroblasts. In ovo inoculation yielded no detectable viral replication or lesion in tissues. Data indicate that although chicken, duck, and goose embryo fibroblasts can be infected with ABBV-1, a persistent infection is more easily established in duck and goose cells. Therefore, ABBV-1 may be able to infect chickens in vivo, albeit inefficiently. Additionally, our data indicate that an in ovo model is inadequate to investigating ABBV-1 host restriction and pathogenesis.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".