MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4301279034 · doi:10.26443/msurj.v8i1.106

Studying a poxvirus gene capture model through recombination and reactivation

2013· article· en· W4301279034 on OpenAlexafffund
Katherine T. Johnson, D.H. Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Science Undergraduate Research Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicTransgenic Plants and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHomologous recombinationBiologyRecombinationRecombinant DNAVirologyHomology (biology)Selectable markerComplementary DNADNAFLP-FRT recombinationVacciniaGeneMolecular biologyRecombinant virusGeneticsGenetic recombinationPlasmid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex


 
 
 Introduction: Vaccinia poxvirus (VACV) is a double stranded DNA virus that replicates in the cytoplasm of infected cells. Some VACV genes resemble homologs of host genes and appear to have been captured from the cell; however, since poxviruses are confined to the cytoplasm, researchers are unclear as to how these viruses acquire this homology (1). If a cellular mRNA was accidentally reverse transcribed into cDNA, which could occur during retrovirus co-infection, a poxvirus might be able to incorporate this sequence into its own genome through rare non-homologous (homology-independent) recombination.
 Methods: We modeled this process using two different recombination systems and substituted a DNA encoding mycophenolic acid (MPA), a selectable marker, for the hypothetical non-homologous host cDNA. We prepared DNA constructs containing this marker along with 20 base pairs homologous to the 5’ and 3’ flanking regions of the VACV-encoded NotI restriction site. A construct without this flanking homology was also prepared. The “passive” recombination system used a helper poxvirus to reactivate VACV DNA; in contrast, VACV infected BSC40 cells were transfected with the construct in the “active” recombination system.
 Results: The “passive” recombination system generated 105 PFU/mL of reactivated VACV; however, no recombinants containing the selectable marker were detected. The “active recombination” method generated 106 PFU/mL of total VACV and approximately 10 PFU/mL of recombinant virus for both homology containing and non-homology containing constructs.
 Discussions: We were unable to determine the recombination frequency of the “passive system” because recombinant virus was not detected. Based on virus titers determined from plaque assays, we approximated the recombination frequency of the “active system” to be ≤ 10-5. We are currently cloning and sequencing viruses resulting from non-homologous recombination to determine where the MPA marker is located. Preliminary analysis of these types of clones (data not shown in this paper) suggests that the transfected DNAs are being incorporated into a diversity of sites, some located near the boundary of the VACV genome where the right terminal inverted repeat begins. In summary, our findings suggest that the recombination frequencies in both methods are very low and better methods of selection are needed to observe these rare events. Future studies of recombinant clones are needed to gain a better understanding of this non- homologous gene capture process.
 
 

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.279 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill Science Undergraduate Research JournalSame topicTransgenic Plants and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207