MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042159401 · doi:10.4137/grsb.s4525

Transcriptional Response of <i>E. coli</i> Upon FimH-mediated Fimbrial Adhesion

2010· article· en· W2042159401 on OpenAlexafffund
Prasanna Bhomkar, Wayne Materi, Valentyna Semenchenko, David S. Wishart

Bibliographic record

VenueGene Regulation and Systems Biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsNational Institute for NanotechnologyUniversity of Alberta
FundersGenome AlbertaGenome Canada
KeywordsBiofilmAdhesionEscherichia coliGeneCell biologyCell adhesionBiologyBacteriaMicrobiologyChemistryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Functionalities which may be genetically programmed into a bacterium are limited by its range of possible activities and its sensory capabilities. Therefore, enhancing the bacterial sensory repertoire is a crucial step for expanded utility in potential biomedical, industrial or environmental applications. Using microarray and qRT-PCR analyses, we have investigated transcription in E. coli (strain CSH50) following FimH-mediated adhesion to biocompatible substrates. Specifically, wild-type FimH-mediated adhesion of E. coli to mannose agarose beads and His-tagged FimH-mediated adhesion to Ni(2+)-NTA beads both led to induction of ahpCF, dps, grxA and marRAB genes among bound cells relative to unbound cells. The strongly-induced genes are known to be regulated by OxyR or SoxS cytoplasmic redox sensors. Some differentially altered genes also overlapped with those implicated in biofilm formation. This study provides an insight into transcriptional events following FimH-mediated adhesion and may provide a platform for elucidation of the signaling circuit necessary for engineering a synthetic attachment response in E. coli.

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 score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations30
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGene Regulation and Systems BiologySame topicBacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyFrench-language works237,207