Distribution and Expression of the ZmpA Metalloprotease in the <i>Burkholderia cepacia</i> Complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The distribution of the metalloprotease gene zmpA was determined among strains of the Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc). The zmpA gene was present in B. cepacia, B. cenocepacia, B. stabilis, B. ambifaria and B. pyrrocinia but absent from B. multivorans, B. vietnamiensis, B. dolosa, and B. anthina. The presence of zmpA generally correlated with extracellular proteolytic activity with the exception of five strains, which had zmpA but had no detectable proteolytic activity when skim milk agar was used as a substrate (zmpA protease deficient). Western immunoblot experiments with anti-ZmpA antibodies suggest that the zmpA protease-deficient strains do not secrete or accumulate detectable ZmpA. Transcriptional zmpA::lacZ fusions were introduced in selected strains of the Bcc. zmpA::lacZ was expressed in all strains, but expression was generally lower in the zmpA protease-deficient strains than in the zmpA protease-proficient strains. Quantitative reverse transcriptase real-time PCR demonstrated that zmpA protease-deficient strains did express zmpA mRNA, although at various levels. ZmpA has previously been shown to be positively regulated by the CepIR quorum-sensing system. Addition of exogenous AHLs did not restore extracellular protease production to any of the zmpA protease-deficient strains; however, introduction of cepR in trans complemented protease activity in two of five strains. Extracellular proteolytic activity was restored by the presence of zmpA in trans in two of the five strains. These studies suggest that although some strains of the Bcc contain the zmpA gene, multiple factors may influence its expression.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".