Genetic Analysis of Phage Mu Mor Protein Amino Acids Involved in DNA Minor Groove Binding and Conformational Changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gene expression during lytic development of bacteriophage Mu occurs in three phases: early, middle, and late. Transcription from the middle promoter, P(m), requires the phage-encoded activator protein Mor and the bacterial RNA polymerase. The middle promoter has a -10 hexamer, but no -35 hexamer. Instead P(m) has a hyphenated inverted repeat that serves as the Mor binding site overlapping the position of the missing -35 element. Mor binds to this site as a dimer and activates transcription by recruiting RNA polymerase. The crystal structure of the His-Mor dimer revealed three structural elements: an N-terminal dimerization domain, a C-terminal helix-turn-helix DNA-binding domain, and a β-strand linker between the two domains. We predicted that the highly conserved residues in and flanking the β-strand would be essential for the conformational flexibility and DNA minor groove binding by Mor. To test this hypothesis, we carried out single codon-specific mutagenesis with degenerate oligonucleotides. The amino acid substitutions were identified by DNA sequencing. The mutant proteins were characterized for their overexpression, solubility, DNA binding, and transcription activation. This analysis revealed that the Gly-Gly motif formed by Gly-65 and Gly-66 and the β-strand side chain of Tyr-70 are crucial for DNA binding by His-tagged Mor. Mutant proteins with substitutions at Gly-74 retained partial activity. Treatment with the minor groove- and GC-specific chemical chromomycin A(3) demonstrated that chromomycin prevented His-Mor binding but could not disrupt a pre-formed His-Mor·DNA complex, consistent with the prediction that Mor interacts with the minor groove of the GC-rich spacer in the Mor binding site.
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".