Adaptive Evolution of the Fox Coronavirus Based on Genome‐Wide Sequence Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To report the first complete fox coronavirus (CoV) genome sequence obtained through genome-wide amplifications and to understand the adaptive evolution of fox CoV. Methods: Anal swab samples were collected from 35 foxes to detect the presence of CoV and obtain the virus sequence. Phylogenetic analysis was conducted using MrBayes. The possibility of recombination within these sequences was assessed using GARD. Analysis of the levels of selection pressure experienced by these sequences was assessed using methods on both the PAML and Data Monkey platforms. Results: Of the 35 samples, two were positive, and complete genome sequences for the viruses were obtained. Phylogenetic analysis, using Bayesian methods, of these sequences, together with other CoV sequences, revealed that the fox CoV sequences clustered with canine coronavirus (CCoV) sequences, with sequences from other carnivores more distantly related. In contrast to the feline, ferret and mink CoV sequences that clustered into species-specific clades, the fox CoV fell within the CCoV clade. Minimal evidence for recombination was found among the sequences. A total of 7, 3, 14, and 2 positively selected sites were identified in the M, N, S, and 7B genes, respectively, with 99, 111, and 581 negatively selected sites identified in M, N, and S genes, respectively. Conclusion: The complete genome sequence of fox CoV has been obtained for the first time. The results suggest that the genome sequence of fox CoV may have experienced adaptive evolution in the genes replication, entry, and virulence. The number of sites in each gene that experienced negative selection is far greater than the number that underwent positive selection, suggesting that most of the sequence is highly conserved and important for viral survive. However, positive selection at a few sites likely aided these viruses to adapt to new environments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".