MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066175243 · doi:10.1139/w05-133

Extracytoplasmic storage as the nickel resistance mechanism in a natural isolate of<i>Pseudomonas putida</i>S4

2006· article· en· W2066175243 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Viveka Nand Tripathi, Shashi Srivastava

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicChromium effects and bioremediation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriplasmic spacePseudomonas putidaMutantPseudomonasChemistryMicrobiologyNickelBiologyBacteriaBiochemistryEscherichia coliEnzymeGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metal resistances in microbes are important to study not only to understand metal homeostasis but also to use such organisms further in environmental bioremediation. Nickel (Ni2+) is an important micronutrient, which at higher concentration becomes toxic. Many Ni2+-resistant organisms are known, which resist metal by active efflux. Pseudomonas putida S4, a natural isolate from India, is reported to show a multi-metal resistance profile. In the present study, the Ni2+-resistance mechanism in strain S4 was examined. Wild-type cells gradually accumulated Ni2+ but kept it preferentially in the periplasmic space in a bound form. In Ni2+-sensitive mutants, periplasmic storage was disturbed and more metal accumulated cytoplasmically, producing toxicity. Sodium dodecyl sulphate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis analysis of periplasmic proteins revealed a band of approximately 18 kDa, which appeared only in Ni2+-exposed wild-type cells, and which was absent from cells not exposed to Ni2+ as well as from Ni2+-sensitive mutants. On the basis of these observations, we propose a Ni2+-resistance mechanism in P. putida S4 based on sequestration of metal in the periplasmic space. This is the first study of sequestration-based Ni2+ resistance.

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 score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations12
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicChromium effects and bioremediationFrench-language works237,207