MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mammalian Endogenous Retroviruses

2015· review· en· W900440242 on OpenAlexafffund
Dixie L. Mager, Jonathan P. Stoye

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobiology Spectrum · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFrancis Crick Institute
KeywordsEndogenous retrovirusBiologyGenomeGeneGeneticsRetrovirusLong terminal repeatHuman genomeDomesticationEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over 40% of mammalian genomes comprise the products of reverse transcription. Among such retrotransposed sequences are those characterized by the presence of long terminal repeats (LTRs), including the endogenous retroviruses (ERVs), which are inherited genetic elements closely resembling the proviruses formed following exogenous retrovirus infection. Sequences derived from ERVs make up at least 8 to 10% of the human and mouse genomes and range from ancient sequences that predate mammalian divergence to elements that are currently still active. In this chapter we describe the discovery, classification and origins of ERVs in mammals and consider cellular mechanisms that have evolved to control their expression. We also discuss the negative effects of ERVs as agents of genetic disease and cancer and review examples of ERV protein domestication to serve host functions, as in placental development. Finally, we address growing evidence that the gene regulatory potential of ERV LTRs has been exploited multiple times during evolution to regulate genes and gene networks. Thus, although recently endogenized retroviral elements are often pathogenic, those that survive the forces of negative selection become neutral components of the host genome or can be harnessed to serve beneficial roles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.009

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations229
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrobiology SpectrumSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207