Teichoic Acid Is an Essential Polymer in <i>Bacillus subtilis</i> That Is Functionally Distinct from Teichuronic Acid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wall teichoic acids are anionic, phosphate-rich polymers linked to the peptidoglycan of gram-positive bacteria. In Bacillus subtilis, the predominant wall teichoic acid types are poly(glycerol phosphate) in strain 168 and poly(ribitol phosphate) in strain W23, and they are synthesized by the tag and tar gene products, respectively. Growing evidence suggests that wall teichoic acids are essential in B. subtilis; however, it is widely believed that teichoic acids are dispensable under phosphate-limiting conditions. In the work reported here, we carefully studied the dispensability of teichoic acid under phosphate-limiting conditions by constructing three new mutants. These strains, having precise deletions in tagB, tagF, and tarD, were dependent on xylose-inducible complementation from a distal locus (amyE) for growth. The tarD deletion interrupted poly(ribitol phosphate) synthesis in B. subtilis and represents a unique deletion of a tar gene. When teichoic acid biosynthetic proteins were depleted, the mutants showed a coccoid morphology and cell wall thickening. The new wall teichoic acid biogenesis mutants generated in this work and a previously reported tagD mutant were not viable under phosphate-limiting conditions in the absence of complementation. Cell wall analysis of B. subtilis grown under phosphate-limited conditions showed that teichoic acid contributed approximately one-third of the wall anionic content. These data suggest that wall teichoic acid has an essential function in B. subtilis that cannot be replaced by teichuronic acid.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".