MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979800460 · doi:10.1139/cjm-46-1-1

Evidence for plasmid-mediated chemotaxis of <i>Pseudomonas putida</i> towards naphthalene and salicylate

2000· article· en· W1979800460 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sudip Samanta, Rakesh Jain

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlasmidPseudomonas putidaChemotaxisNapMutantMicrobiologyRecombinant DNAStrain (injury)BiologyPseudomonadalesEcoRIChemistryMolecular biologyPseudomonasBiochemistryBacteriaDNAGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A naphthalene (Nap) and salicylate (Sal) degrading microorganism, Pseudomonas putida RKJ1, is chemotactic towards these compounds. This strain carries a 83 kb plasmid. A 25 kb EcoRI fragment of the plasmid contains the genes responsible for Nap degradation through Sal. RKJ5, the plasmid-cured derivative of RKJ1, is neither capable of degradation nor is chemotactic towards Nap or Sal. The recombinant plasmid pRKJ3, which contained a 25 kb EcoRI fragment, was transferred back into the plasmid-free wild-type strain RKJ5, and the transconjugant showed both degradation and chemotaxis. The recombinant plasmid pRKJ3 was also transferred into motile, plasmid-free P. putida KT2442. The resulting transconjugant (RKJ15) showed chemotaxis towards both Nap and Sal. Two mutant strains carrying deletions in pRKJ3 (in KT2442) with phenotypes Nap- Sal+ and Nap- Sal-, were also tested for chemotaxis. It was found that the Nap- Sal+ mutant strain showed chemotaxis towards Sal only, whereas the Nap- Sal- mutant strain is non-chemotactic towards both the compounds. These results suggest that the metabolism of Nap and Sal may be required for the chemotactic activity.

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 score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score0.819

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations51
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicBacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyFrench-language works237,207