MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036754283 · doi:10.1016/j.febslet.2014.05.022

Tracking bacterial pathogens with genetically‐encoded reporters

2014· review· en· W2036754283 on OpenAlexfundno aff
François‐Xavier Campbell‐Valois, Philippe Sansonetti

Bibliographic record

VenueFEBS Letters · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVibrio bacteria research studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsBiologyAdaptation (eye)BacteriaHost adaptationComputational biologyHost (biology)MicrobiologyGeneCell biologyVirulenceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the infectious process, bacterial pathogens are subject to changes in environmental conditions such as nutrient availability, immune response challenges, bacterial density and physical contacts with targeted host cells. These conditions occur in the colonized organs, in diverse regions within infected tissues or even at the subcellular level for intracellular pathogens. Integration of environmental cues leads to measurable biological responses in the bacterium required for adaptation. Recent progress in technology enabled the study of bacterial adaptation in situ using genetically encoded reporters that allow single cell analysis or whole body imaging based on fluorescent proteins, alternative fluorescent assays or luciferases. This review presents a historical perspective and technical details on the methods used to develop transcriptional reporters, protein-protein interaction assays and secretion detection assays to study pathogenic bacteria adaptation in situ. Finally, studies published in the last 5 years on gram positive and gram negative bacterial adaptation to the host during infection are discussed. However, the methods described here could easily be extended to study complex microbial communities within host tissue and in the environment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations26
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEBS LettersSame topicVibrio bacteria research studiesFrench-language works237,207