MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056822881 · doi:10.3109/1040841x.2013.866073

Genomic tools to profile antibiotic mode of action

2014· review· en· W2056822881 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Microbiology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAntibioticsAntibiotic resistanceBiologyAntimicrobialBacteriaMicrobiologyComputational biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing emergence of antimicrobial multiresistant bacteria is of great concern to public health. While these bacteria are becoming an ever more prominent cause of nosocomial and community-acquired infections worldwide, the antibiotic discovery pipeline has been stalled in the last few years with very few efforts in the research and development of novel antibacterial therapies. Some of the root causes that have hampered current antibiotic drug development are the lack of understanding of the mode of action (MOA) of novel antibiotic molecules and the poor characterization of the bacterial physiological response to antibiotics that ultimately causes resistance. Here, we review how bacterial genetic tools can be applied at the genomic level with the goal of profiling resistance to antibiotics and elucidating antibiotic MOAs. Specifically, we highlight how chemical genomic detection of the MOA of novel antibiotic molecules and antibiotic profiling by next-generation sequencing are leveraging basic antibiotic research to unprecedented levels with great opportunities for knowledge translation.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.338 · 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