MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bacterial conjugative transfer: visualization of successful mating pairs and plasmid establishment in live <i>Escherichia coli</i>

2002· article· en· W1888599571 on OpenAlexafffund
Trevor D. Lawley, G. Scott Gordon, Andrew Wright, Diane E. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Microbiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthAlberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research
KeywordsPlasmidBiologyEscherichia coliBacteriaBacterial conjugationGeneticsDNAHorizontal gene transferCell biologyGeneGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used the LacO/GFP-LacI system to label and visualize the IncP beta plasmid R751 fluorescently during conjugative transfer between live donor and recipient bacteria. Comparisons of R751 in conjugative and non-conjugative conditions have allowed us to identify key localizations and movements associated with the initiation of conjugative transfer in the donor and the establishment of R751 in the recipient. A survey of successful mating pairs demonstrates that close physical contact between donor and recipient bacteria is required for DNA transfer and that regions of intimate contact can occur at any location on the donor or recipient cell membrane. The transferred DNA is positioned at the characteristic centre or quarter-cell position after conversion to a double-stranded molecule in the recipient cell. Initial duplication of plasmids often results in an asymmetric distribution of plasmid foci. Symmetric localization (either at centre or at 1/4 and 3/4 cell lengths) occurs only after a significant lag, presumably reflecting the time required to synthesize the plasmid-encoded partitioning proteins.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.862

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations49
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular MicrobiologySame topicBacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyFrench-language works237,207