The structure and biological characteristics of the <i>Spirochaeta aurantia</i> outer membrane glycolipid LGL<sub>B</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an attempt to isolate lipopolysaccharide from Spirochaeta aurantia, Darveau-Hancock extraction of the cell mass was performed. While no lipopolysaccharide was found, two carbohydrate-containing compounds were detected. They were resolved by size-exclusion chromatography into high molecular mass (LGLA) and low molecular mass (LGLB) fractions. Here we present the results of the analysis of the glycolipid LGLB. Deacylation of LGLB with hydrazine and separation of the products by using anion-exchange chromatography gave two major products. Their structure was determined by using chemical methods, NMR and mass spectrometry. All monosaccharides had the D-configuration, and aspartic acid had the L-configuration. Intact LGLB contained two fatty groups at O-2 and O-3 of the glycerol residue. Nonhydroxylated C14 to C18 fatty acids were identified, which were predominantly unsaturated or branched. LGLB was able to gel Limulus amebocyte lysate, albeit at a lower level than that observed for Escherichia coli O113 lipopolysaccharide. However, even large amounts of LGLB were unable to stimulate any Toll-like receptor (TLR) examined, including TLR4 and TLR2, previously shown to be sensitive to lipopolysaccharide and glycolipids from diverse bacterial origins, including other spirochetes.
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) | 0.000 | 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".