MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293778957 · doi:10.3390/pathogens11080896

Poxvirus Recombination

2022· review· en· W4293778957 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePathogens · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPoxvirus research and outbreaks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersInstitut canadien d'information sur la santéNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMedical Research Council Canada
KeywordsRecombinationBiologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic recombination is used as a tool for modifying the composition of poxvirus genomes in both discovery and applied research. This review documents the history behind the development of these tools as well as what has been learned about the processes that catalyze virus recombination and the links between it and DNA replication and repair. The study of poxvirus recombination extends back to the 1930s with the discovery that one virus can reactivate another by a process later shown to generate recombinants. In the years that followed it was shown that recombinants can be produced in virus-by-virus crosses within a genus (e.g., variola-by-rabbitpox) and efforts were made to produce recombination-based genetic maps with modest success. The marker rescue mapping method proved more useful and led to methods for making genetically engineered viruses. Many further insights into the mechanism of recombination have been provided by transfection studies which have shown that this is a high-frequency process associated with hybrid DNA formation and inextricably linked to replication. The links reflect the fact that poxvirus DNA polymerases, specifically the vaccinia virus E9 enzyme, can catalyze strand transfer in in vivo and in vitro reactions dependent on the 3'-to-5' proofreading exonuclease and enhanced by the I3 replicative single-strand DNA binding protein. These reactions have shaped the composition of virus genomes and are modulated by constraints imposed on virus-virus interactions by viral replication in cytoplasmic factories. As recombination reactions are used for replication fork assembly and repair in many biological systems, further study of these reactions may provide new insights into still poorly understood features of poxvirus DNA replication.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.007

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.258 · 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