MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Regulation of transcription by acetate in <i>Escherichia coli</i>: <i>in vivo</i> and <i>in vitro</i> comparisons

2008· article· en· W1997949364 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Rosenthal, Young‐Bae Kim, Jay D. Gralla

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Microbiology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsEmergent BioSolutions (Canada)
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsBiologyTranscription (linguistics)RNA polymerasePromoterIn vitroIn vivoMolecular biologyBiochemistryEscherichia coliRNA polymerase IITranscription factorPsychological repressionSigma factorTranscription factor II BCell biologyGene expressionGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acetate, even at neutral pH, induces changes in gene expression that allow Escherichia coli to adapt to the diverse chemical stresses of the gastrointestinal tract. These include differential effects on transcription, including both activation and repression. The in vivo studies presented here show that cyclopropane fatty acid synthase transcription induced by neutral acetate proceeds via both the sigma70 and sigma38 forms of RNA polymerase. Upstream DNA elements are required in both cases, but in vitro studies demonstrate that the binding of regulatory factors is not needed. Sigma70 promoters respond towards acetate with very significant differences in vitro, with effects ranging from inhibition to lack of effect to weak stimulation to strong stimulation. By contrast, the effects of acetate on sigma38 transcription at these same promoters in vitro are generally stimulatory. Thus, acetate directly alters transcription complexes in vitro in ways that lead to significant differential transcription, contributing to the diverse effects that are known to allow adaptation in vivo.

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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations27
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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