Prediction of molecular mimicry candidates in human pathogenic bacteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Molecular mimicry of host proteins is a common strategy adopted by bacterial pathogens to interfere with and exploit host processes. Despite the availability of pathogen genomes, few studies have attempted to predict virulence-associated mimicry relationships directly from genomic sequences. Here, we analyzed the proteomes of 62 pathogenic and 66 non-pathogenic bacterial species, and screened for the top pathogen-specific or pathogen-enriched sequence similarities to human proteins. The screen identified approximately 100 potential mimicry relationships including well-characterized examples among the top-scoring hits (e.g., RalF, internalin, yopH, and others), with about 1/3 of predicted relationships supported by existing literature. Examination of homology to virulence factors, statistically enriched functions, and comparison with literature indicated that the detected mimics target key host structures (e.g., extracellular matrix, ECM) and pathways (e.g., cell adhesion, lipid metabolism, and immune signaling). The top-scoring and most widespread mimicry pattern detected among pathogens consisted of elevated sequence similarities to ECM proteins including collagens and leucine-rich repeat proteins. Unexpectedly, analysis of the pathogen counterparts of these proteins revealed that they have evolved independently in different species of bacterial pathogens from separate repeat amplifications. Thus, our analysis provides evidence for two classes of mimics: complex proteins such as enzymes that have been acquired by eukaryote-to-pathogen horizontal transfer, and simpler repeat proteins that have independently evolved to mimic the host ECM. Ultimately, computational detection of pathogen-specific and pathogen-enriched similarities to host proteins provides insights into potentially novel mimicry-mediated virulence mechanisms of pathogenic bacteria.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".