Surface Appendages of Archaea: Structure, Function, Genetics and Assembly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organisms representing diverse subgroupings of the Domain Archaea are known to possess unusual surface structures. These can include ones unique to Archaea such as cannulae and hami as well as archaella (archaeal flagella) and various types of pili that superficially resemble their namesakes in Bacteria, although with significant differences. Major advances have occurred particularly in the study of archaella and pili using model organisms with recently developed advanced genetic tools. There is common use of a type IV pili-model of assembly for several archaeal surface structures including archaella, certain pili and sugar binding structures termed bindosomes. In addition, there are widespread posttranslational modifications of archaellins and pilins with N-linked glycans, with some containing novel sugars. Archaeal surface structures are involved in such diverse functions as swimming, attachment to surfaces, cell to cell contact resulting in genetic transfer, biofilm formation, and possible intercellular communication. Sometimes functions are co-dependent on other surface structures. These structures and the regulation of their assembly are important features that allow various Archaea, including thermoacidophilic, hyperthermophilic, halophilic, and anaerobic ones, to survive and thrive in the extreme environments that are commonly inhabited by members of this domain.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".