MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202638437 · doi:10.2166/wh.2021.167

SARS-CoV-2 surrogate (<i>Phi6</i>) environmental persistence within free-living amoebae

2021· article· en· W3202638437 on OpenAlexafffund
Rafik Dey, Elena Dlusskaya, Nicholas J. Ashbolt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water and Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLegionella and Acanthamoeba research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersDirectorate for Biological SciencesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta InnovatesUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsPersistence (discontinuity)BiologyProtozoaBacteriophageSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)MicrobiologyVirusVirologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Infectious disease (medical specialty)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reported persistence of SARS-CoV-2 virions in aquatic environments highlights the need to better understand potential mechanisms that may prolong its dissemination. We evaluated the possibility that amoebae might serve as transport hosts by studying the interaction of the enveloped bacteriophage Phi6, as a potential surrogated along with one of the most common amoebae in engineered aquatic environments, Vermamoeba vermiformis. Using microscopy, imaging flow cytometry and bacteriophage cell culture, our results imply that the SARS-CoV-2 surrogate triggers amoebic mitochondria and induced apoptosis to promote viral persistence in trophozoites. Furthermore, virus-infected amoebae were still infectious after 2 months within FLA cysts. These results suggest that amoebae could contribute to the environmental persistence of SARS-CoV-2, including disinfection processes. In addition, amoebae could be a successful model system for understanding respiratory virus-eukaryotic biology at the cellular and molecular levels.

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)0.000
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations20
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water and HealthSame topicLegionella and Acanthamoeba researchFrench-language works237,207