Osmosensor ProP of <i>Escherichia coli</i> Responds to the Concentration, Chemistry, and Molecular Size of Osmolytes in the Proteoliposome Lumen<sup>,</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transporter ProP of Escherichia coli mediates the cellular accumulation of organic zwitterions in response to increased extracellular osmolality. We compared and characterized the osmoregulation of ProP activity in cells and proteoliposomes to define the osmotic shift-induced cellular change(s) to which ProP responds. ProP-(His)(6) activity in cells and proteoliposomes was correlated with medium osmolality, not osmotic shift, turgor pressure, or membrane strain. Both K(M) and V(max) for proline uptake via ProP-(His)(6) increased with increasing medium osmolality, as would be expected if osmolality controls the proportions of transporter with inactive and active conformations. The osmolality yielding half-maximal ProP-(His)(6) activity was higher in proteoliposomes than in cells. The osmolality response of ProP is also attenuated in bacteria lacking soluble protein ProQ. Indeed, the catalytic constant (k(cat)) for ProP-(His)(6) in proteoliposomes approximated that of ProP in intact bacteria lacking ProQ. Thus, the proteoliposome system may replicate a primary osmosensory response that can be further amplified by ProQ. ProP-(His)(6) is designated as an osmosensor because its activity is dependent on the osmolality, but not the composition, of the assay medium to which the cell surface is exposed. In contrast, ProP-(His)(6) activity was dependent on both the osmolality and the composition of the lumen in osmolyte-loaded proteoliposomes. For proteoliposomes containing inorganic salts, glucose, or poly(ethylene glycol) 503, transporter activity correlated with total lumenal cation concentration. In contrast, for proteoliposomes loaded with larger poly(ethylene glycol)s, the osmolality, the lumenal cation concentration, and the lumenal ionic strength at half-maximal transporter activity decreased systematically with poly(ethylene glycol) radius of gyration (range 0.8-1.8 nm). These data suggest that ProP-(His)(6) responds to osmotically induced changes in both cytoplasmic K(+) levels and the concentration of cytoplasmic macromolecules.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".