Data from: A novel approach to wildlife transcriptomics provides evidence of disease-mediated differential expression and changes to the microbiome of amphibian populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ranaviruses are responsible for a lethal, emerging infectious disease in amphibians and threaten their populations throughout the world. Despite this, little is known about how amphibian populations respond to ranaviral infection. In the United Kingdom, ranaviruses impact the common frog (Rana temporaria). Extensive public engagement in the study of ranaviruses in the UK has led to the formation of a unique system of field sites containing frog populations of known ranaviral disease history. Within this unique natural field system, we used RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) to compare the gene expression profiles of R. temporaria populations with a history of ranaviral disease and those without. We have applied a RNA read filtering protocol that incorporates Bloom filters, previously used in clinical settings, to limit the potential for contamination that comes with the use of RNA-Seq in non-laboratory systems. We have identified a suite of 407 transcripts that are differentially expressed between populations of different ranaviral disease history. This suite contains genes with functions related to immunity, development, protein transport and olfactory reception amongst others. A large proportion of potential non-coding RNA transcripts present in our differentially expressed set provides first evidence of a possible role for long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) in amphibian response to viruses. Our read-filtering approach also removed significantly more bacterial reads from libraries generated from postitive disease history populations. Subsequent analysis revealed these bacterial read sets to represent distinct communities of bacterial species, which is suggestive of an interaction between ranavirus and the host microbiome in the wild.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
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".