Lipopolysaccharide O antigen size distribution is determined by a chain extension complex of variable stoichiometry in <i>E</i> <i>scherichia coli</i> O9a
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lengths of bacterial polysaccharides can be critical for their biological function. Unlike DNA or protein synthesis, where polymer length is implicit in the nucleic acid template, the molecular mechanisms for regulating polysaccharide length are poorly understood. Two models are commonly cited: a "molecular clock" regulates length by controlling the duration of the polymer extension process, whereas a "molecular ruler" determines length by measurement against a physical structure in the biosynthetic complex. Escherichia coli O9a is a prototype for the biosynthesis of O polysaccharides by ATP-binding cassette transporter-dependent processes. The length of the O9a polysaccharide is determined by two proteins: an extension enzyme, WbdA, and a termination enzyme, WbdD. WbdD is known to self-oligomerize and also to interact with WbdA. Changing either enzyme's concentration can alter the polysaccharide length. We quantified the O9a polysaccharide length distribution and the enzyme concentration dependence in vivo, then made mathematical models to predict the polymer length distributions resulting from hypothetical length-regulation mechanisms. Our data show qualitative features that cannot be explained by either a molecular clock or a molecular ruler model. Therefore, we propose a "variable geometry" model, in which a postulated biosynthetic WbdA-WbdD complex assembles with variable stoichiometry dependent on relative enzyme concentration. Each stoichiometry produces polymers with a distinct, geometrically determined, modal length. This model reproduces the enzyme concentration dependence and modality of the observed polysaccharide length distributions. Our work highlights limitations of previous models and provides new insight into the mechanisms of length control in polysaccharide biosynthesis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".