MetR and CRP bind to the <i>Vibrio harveyi lux</i> promoters and regulate luminescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The induction of luminescence in Vibrio harveyi at the later stages of growth is controlled by a quorum-sensing mechanism in addition to nutritional signals. However, the mechanism of transmission of these signals directly to the lux promoters is unknown and only one regulatory protein, LuxR, has been shown to bind directly to lux promoter DNA. In this report, we have cloned and sequenced two genes, crp and metR, coding for the nutritional regulators, CRP (cAMP receptor protein) and MetR (a LysR homologue), involved in catabolite repression and methionine biosynthesis respectively. The metR gene was cloned based on a general strategy to detect lux DNA-binding proteins expressed from a genomic library, whereas the crp gene was cloned based on its complementation of an Escherichia coli crp mutant. Both CRP and MetR were shown to bind to lux promoter DNA, with CRP being dependent on the presence of cAMP. Expression studies indicated that the two regulators had opposite effects on luminescence: CRP was an activator and MetR a repressor. Disruption of crp decreased luminescence by about 1,000-fold showing that CRP is a major activator of luminescence the same as LuxR, whereas disruption of MetR resulted in activation of luminescence over 10-fold, confirming its function as a repressor. Comparison of the levels of the autoinducers involved in quorum sensing excreted by V. harveyi, and the crp and metR mutants, showed that autoinducer production was not significantly different, thus indicating that the nutritional signals do not affect luminescence by changing the levels of the signals required for quorum sensing. Indeed, the large effects of these nutritional sensors show that luminescence is controlled by multiple signals related to the environment and the cell density which must be integrated at the molecular level to control expression at the lux promoters.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".