Positive strand RNA viruses differ in the constraints they place on the folding of their negative strand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome replication of positive strand RNA viruses requires the production of a complementary negative strand RNA that serves as a template for synthesis of more positive strand progeny. Structural RNA elements are important for genome replication, but while they are readily observed in the positive strand, evidence of their existence in the negative strand is more limited. We hypothesized that this was due to viruses differing in their capacity to allow this latter RNA to adopt structural folds. To investigate this, ribozymes were introduced into the negative strand of different viral constructs; the expectation being that if RNA folding occurred, negative strand cleavage and suppression of replication would be seen. Indeed, this was what happened with hepatitis C virus (HCV) and feline calicivirus (FCV) constructs. However, little or no impact was observed for chikungunya virus (CHIKV), human rhinovirus (HRV), hepatitis E virus (HEV), and yellow fever virus (YFV) constructs. Reduced cleavage in the negative strand proved to be due to duplex formation with the positive strand. Interestingly, ribozyme-containing RNAs also remained intact when produced in vitro by the HCV polymerase, again due to duplex formation. Overall, our results show that there are important differences in the conformational constraints imposed on the folding of the negative strand between different positive strand RNA viruses.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".