MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974144264 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0035620

Natural DNA Uptake by Escherichia coli

2012· article· en· W1974144264 on OpenAlexafffund
Sunita Sinha, Rosemary J. Redfield

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyDNAEscherichia coliGenePlasmidGeneticsRecombinaseTransformation (genetics)Recombination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Escherichia coli has homologues of the competence genes other species use for DNA uptake and processing, but natural competence and transformation have never been detected. Although we previously showed that these genes are induced by the competence regulator Sxy as in other gamma-proteobacteria, no conditions are known that naturally induce sxy expression. We have now tested whether the competence gene homologues encode a functional DNA uptake machinery and whether DNA uptake leads to recombination, by investigating the effects of plasmid-borne sxy expression on natural competence in a wide variety of E. coli strains. High- and low-level sxy expression alone did not induce transformation in any of the strains tested, despite varying the transforming DNA, its concentration, and the incubation conditions used. Direct measurements of uptake of radiolabelled DNA were below the limit of detection, however transformants were readily detected when recombination functions were provided by the lambda Red recombinase. This is the first demonstration that E. coli sxy expression can induce natural DNA uptake and that E. coli's competence genes do encode a functional uptake machinery. However, the amount of transformation cells undergo is limited both by low levels of DNA uptake and by inefficient DNA processing/recombination.

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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations48
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicBacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyFrench-language works237,207