MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Postgenomic Analysis of Four Novel Antigens of Group A <i>Streptococcus</i> : Growth Phase-Dependent Gene Transcription and Human Serologic Response

2002· article· en· W2007627175 on OpenAlexaff
Sean D. Reid, Nicole M. Green, Gail L. Sylva, Jovanka M. Voyich, Elisha T. Stenseth, Frank R. DeLeo, Timothy Palzkill, Donald E. Low, Harry R. Hill, James M. Musser

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bacteriology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStreptococcal Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGeneSerotypeVirulenceStreptococcus equiStreptococcus pyogenesMicrobiologyImmune systemGeneticsBacteriaStaphylococcus aureus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analysis of three group A Streptococcus genomes (serotypes M1, M3, and M18) recently identified four previously undescribed genes that encode extracellular proteins. Each of these genes encode proteins with an LPXTG amino acid motif that covalently links many virulence factors produced by gram-positive bacteria to the cell surface. Western immunoblot analysis of serum samples obtained from 80 patients with invasive infections, noninvasive soft tissue infections, pharyngitis, and rheumatic fever indicated that these four proteins are expressed in vivo. However, the level of gene transcript and the time of maximal gene transcription varied in representative serotype M1, M3, and M18 strains. Surface expression of two proteins was confirmed by flow cytometry. Studies using a mouse infection model suggest that antibodies specific for one of the proteins (Spy0843) may contribute to a protective host immune response against a serotype M1 infection. These results are additional evidence that postgenomic strategies provide new ways to identify and investigate novel bacterial proteins that may participate in host-pathogen interactions or serve as targets for therapeutics research.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations48
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of BacteriologySame topicStreptococcal Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207