MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<i>In vivo</i> and <i>in vitro</i> studies of <i>Chlamydia trachomatis</i> TrpR:DNA interactions

2006· article· en· W2019734698 on OpenAlexaff
John H. Carlson, Heidi Wood, Christine Roshick, Harlan D. Caldwell, Grant McClarty

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Microbiology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaCanadian Science Centre for Human and Animal HealthManitoba Health
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsBiologyMutantRepressorRecombinant DNAtrp operonChlamydia trachomatisOperator (biology)OperonMolecular biologyGeneticsTranscription factorGeneVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We previously reported that Chlamydia trachomatis expresses the genes encoding tryptophan synthase (trpBA) and the tryptophan repressor (trpR). Here we employ primer extension analysis to identify the transcriptional origins of both trpR and trpBA, allowing for the identification of the putative operator sequences for both trpR and trpBA. Moreover we demonstrate that native recombinant chlamydial TrpR binds to the predicted operator sequence upstream of trpR. A restriction endonuclease protection assay was designed and used to demonstrate that 5-fluorotryptophan was the only tryptophan analogue capable of activating binding of native recombinant chlamydial TrpR to its operator. Additionally, 5-fluorotryptophan was the only analogue that repressed expression of trpBA at a level analogous to L-tryptophan itself. Based on these findings, a mutant selection protocol was designed and a C. trachomatis isolate containing a frameshift mutation in trpR was isolated. This chlamydial mutant synthesizes a truncated TrpR protein that cannot regulate expression of trpBA and trpR in response to changes in tryptophan levels. These findings provide the first genetic proof that TrpR acts as a negative regulator of transcription in C. trachomatis.

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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations36
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular MicrobiologySame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207