MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

WaaL of <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i> utilizes ATP in <i>in vitro</i> ligation of O antigen onto lipid A‐core

2007· article· en· W1993763802 on OpenAlexafffund
Priyanka D. Abeyrathne, Joseph S. Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Microbiology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersCanada Research ChairsCystic Fibrosis Foundation
KeywordsDNA ligaseBiologyPeriplasmic spaceBiochemistryEscherichia coliMolecular biologyEnzymeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

waaL has been implicated as the gene that encodes the O-antigen ligase. To date, in vitro biochemical evidence to prove that WaaL possesses ligase activity has been lacking due to the difficulty of purifying WaaL and unavailability of substrates. Here we describe the purification of WaaL, a membrane protein with 11 potential transmembrane segments from Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and the development of an in vitro O-antigen ligase assay. WaaL was expressed in a P. aeruginosa wbpL knockout strain, which is defective in its initial glycosyltransferase for O-antigen biosynthesis. This approach allowed the purification of WaaL without contaminating O-antigen-undecaprenol-phosphate (Und-P) molecules. Purified WaaL resolved to a monomer (35 kDa) and a dimer (70 kDa) band in SDS-PAGE. The substrates for the O-antigen ligase assay, O-antigen-Und-P and lipid A-core were prepared from a waaL mutant. ATP at 2-4 mM is optimum for the O-ligase activity, and ATP hydrolysis by WaaL follows Michaelis-Menten kinetics. Site-directed mutagenesis analysis indicated that the periplasmic loop region of WaaL is important for ligase activity. A waaL mutant of P. aeruginosa could not be cross-complemented by waaL of Escherichia coli, which suggested that each of these proteins has specificity for its cognate core oligosaccharide.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

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 integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations60
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular MicrobiologySame topicBacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyFrench-language works237,207