Capripoxviruses, leporipoxviruses, and orthopoxviruses: Occurrences of recombination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poxviruses are double-stranded DNA viruses with several members displaying restricted host ranges. They are genetically stable with low nucleotide mutation rates compared to other viruses, due to the poxviral high-fidelity DNA polymerase. Despite the low accumulation of mutations per replication cycle, poxvirus genomes can recombine with each other to generate genetically rearranged viruses through recombination, a process directly associated with replication and the aforementioned DNA polymerase. Orthopoxvirus replication is intimately tethered to high frequencies of homologous recombination between co-infecting viruses, duplicated sequences of the same virus, and plasmid DNA transfected into poxvirus-infected cells. Unfortunately, the effect of these genomic alterations on the cellular context for all poxviruses across the family Poxviridae remains elusive. However, emerging sequence data on currently circulating and archived poxviruses, such as the genera orthopoxviruses and capripoxviruses, display a wide degree of divergence. This genetic variability cannot be explained by clonality or genetic drift alone, but are probably a result of significant genomic alterations, such as homologous recombination, gene loss and gain, or gene duplications as the major selection forces acting on viral progeny. The objective of this review is to cross-sectionally overview the currently available findings on natural and laboratory observations of recombination in orthopoxviruses, capripoxviruses, and leporipoxviruses, as well as the possible mechanisms involved. Overall, the reviewed available evidence allows us to conclude that the current state of knowledge is limited in terms of the relevance of genetic variations across even a genus of poxviruses as well as fundamental features governing and precipitating intrinsic gene flow and recombination events.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".