Comparing Host Module Activation Patterns and Temporal Dynamics in Infection by Influenza H1N1 Viruses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Influenza is a serious global health threat that shows varying pathogenicity among different virus strains. Understanding similarities and differences among activated functional pathways in the host responses can help elucidate therapeutic targets responsible for pathogenesis. To compare the types and timing of functional modules activated in host cells by four influenza viruses of varying pathogenicity, we developed a new DYNAmic MOdule (DYNAMO) method that addresses the need to compare functional module utilization over time. This integrative approach overlays whole genome time series expression data onto an immune-specific functional network, and extracts conserved modules exhibiting either different temporal patterns or overall transcriptional activity. We identified a common core response to influenza virus infection that is temporally shifted for different viruses. We also identified differentially regulated functional modules that reveal unique elements of responses to different virus strains. Our work highlights the usefulness of combining time series gene expression data with a functional interaction map to capture temporal dynamics of the same cellular pathways under different conditions. Our results help elucidate conservation of the immune response both globally and at a granular level, and provide mechanistic insight into the differences in the host response to infection by influenza strains of varying pathogenicity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".