Isolation and Characterization of a Frog Virus 3 Strain from a Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica) in Wood Buffalo National Park
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Members of the Iridoviridae family, genus Ranavirus, represent a group of globally emerging pathogens of ecological and economic importance. In 2017, an amphibian die-off of wood frogs (Rana sylvatica) and boreal chorus frogs (Pseudacris maculata) was reported in Wood Buffalo National Park, Canada. Isolation and complete genomic sequencing of the tissues of a wood frog revealed the presence of a frog virus 3 (FV3)-like isolate, Rana sylvatica ranavirus (RSR), with a genome size of 105,895 base pairs, 97 predicted open reading frames (ORFs) bearing sequence similarity to FV3 (99.98%) and a FV3-like isolate from a spotted salamander in Maine (SSME; 99.64%). Despite high sequence similarity, RSR had a unique genomic composition containing ORFs specific to either FV3 or SSME. In addition, RSR had a unique 13 amino acid insertion in ORF 49/50L. No differences were found in the in vitro growth kinetics of FV3, SSME, and RSR; however, genomic differences between these isolates were in non-core genes, implicated in nucleic acid metabolism and immune evasion. This study highlights the importance of viral isolation and complete genomic analysis as these not only provide information on ranavirus spatial distribution but may elucidate genomic factors contributing to host tropism and pathogenicity.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".