Progress in understanding the assembly process of bacterial O-antigen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The discovery that the surfaces of Gram-negative bacteria often carry unique polysaccharide signatures pre-dates most seminal discoveries of molecular biology and biochemistry of the 20th century. The O-antigen component of the lipopolysaccharide has been one of the most intensely studied bacterial polysaccharide surface structures for over 80 years. Yet, many questions about the mechanism of biosynthesis of the O-antigen and its transport to the cell surface remain unanswered. In this review we provide an overview of how the molecular basis of the O-antigen assembly and trafficking were unraveled in a historical context. We pay particular attention to the emergence of novel technological approaches and how they fueled the elucidation of the O-antigen maturation process. Moreover, we provide a brief perspective on the biosynthesis of enterobacterial common antigen and underline the similarities and differences between the pathways used to assemble these two surface polysaccharides. Finally, we highlight key discoveries that led to the understanding of the mechanistic basis of bacteriophage-induced O-antigen modifications. We place special emphasis on the regulation of the length of O-antigen polymers and provide a detailed overview of the models explaining the O-antigen length determination. Finally, we highlight outstanding questions that need to be addressed both structurally and functionally to advance our understanding of the O-antigen assembly, trafficking and export within cellular and molecular contexts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".