Overlapping and unique contributions of two conserved polysaccharide loci in governing distinct survival phenotypes in <i>Vibrio vulnificus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As an aetiological agent of bacterial sepsis and wound infections, Vibrio vulnificus is unique among the Vibrionacea. Its continued environmental persistence and transmission are bolstered by its ability to colonize shellfish and form biofilms on various marine biotic surfaces. We previously identified a polysaccharide locus, brp, which contributes to the survival phenotypes of biofilm formation, rugose colony formation and stress resistance. Here, we describe a second polysaccharide locus, rbd (regulation of biofilm development), which also enhanced biofilm formation when expressed. Despite this functional overlap, the development of stress resistance and rugosity could be uniquely attributed to brp expression, whereas rbd expression augmented aggregate formation. Simultaneous expression of both loci led to the formation of a dramatic pellicle and maximum biofilm formation. Unlike the brp locus, transcription of the rbd locus was regulated not by c-di-GMP, but by a response regulator (RbdG) that was encoded within the locus. We propose that the ability to regulate the expression of polysaccharides with overlapping and unique characteristics in response to different environmental cues enables V. vulnificus to 'fine tune' its biofilm lifestyle to the prevailing environmental conditions and maximally benefit from the characteristics associated with each polysaccharide.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".