MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Involvement of two related porins, OprD and OpdP, in the uptake of arginine by<i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i>

2006· article· en· W1988463834 on OpenAlexaff
Sandeep Tamber, Robert E. W. Hancock

Bibliographic record

VenueFEMS Microbiology Letters · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPorinSubfamilyBiologyPseudomonas aeruginosaAmino acidPeptide sequenceBiochemistryGeneticsPhylogenetic treeGeneBacteriaEscherichia coliBacterial outer membrane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The OprD family of specific porins in Pseudomonas aeruginosa comprises 19 members, some of which have been demonstrated to facilitate the uptake of specific compounds into the cell. The members of this family share considerable amino acid sequence similarity (46-57%), which is unusual among porin molecules. In this work, we sought to establish whether this sequence conservation was the basis for other shared aspects of this family. The transcriptional profiles of eight relatively well-characterized OprD homologs were assessed in cells grown on a variety of carbon compounds. The expression of these paralogous proteins correlated with their phylogenetic distribution into two subfamilies in that the three members of the OpdK subfamily were induced by their specific (organic acid) substrates while the five members of the amino-acid/peptide-specific OprD subfamily appeared to be constitutively expressed. Functional overlap with respect to arginine transport was observed between two members of the latter subfamily, the basic amino acid-specific porin, OprD, and the glycine-glutamate-specific porin, OpdP. The impact of this apparent functional redundancy on the genetic fitness of P. aeruginosa is discussed.

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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.195
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

Citations41
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEMS Microbiology LettersSame topicBacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyFrench-language works237,207