MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<i>Escherichia coli</i>ArgR mutants defective in<i>cer</i>/Xer recombination, but not in DNA binding

2010· article· en· W2040434273 on OpenAlexafffund
Hélène Sénéchal, Jérémy Delesques, George Szatmari

Bibliographic record

VenueFEMS Microbiology Letters · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRepressorMutantRepressor lexAEscherichia coliLac repressorDNAMolecular biologyBiologySOS responseMutagenesisChemistrylac operonGeneBiochemistryGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Escherichia coli arginine repressor (ArgR) is an L-arginine-dependent DNA-binding protein that controls the expression of the arginine biosynthetic genes and is required as an accessory factor for Xer site-specific recombination at cer and related recombination sites in plasmids. We used the technique of pentapeptide scanning mutagenesis to isolate a series of ArgR mutants that were considerably reduced in cer recombination, but were still able to repress an argA::lacZ fusion. DNA sequence analysis showed that all of the mutants mapped to the same nucleotide, resulting in a five amino acid insertion between residues 149 and 150 of ArgR, corresponding to the end of the alpha6 helix. A truncated ArgR containing a stop codon at residue 150 displayed the same phenotype as the protein with the five amino acid insertion, and both mutants displayed sequence-specific DNA-binding activity that was L-arginine dependent. These results show that the C-terminus of ArgR is more important in cer/Xer site-specific recombination than in DNA binding.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEMS Microbiology LettersSame topicBacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyFrench-language works237,207