Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.014 |
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".