A vast collection of microbial genes that are toxic to bacteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the process of clone-based genome sequencing, initial assemblies frequently contain cloning gaps that can be resolved using cloning-independent methods, but the reason for their occurrence is largely unknown. By analyzing 9,328,693 sequencing clones from 393 microbial genomes, we systematically mapped more than 15,000 genes residing in cloning gaps and experimentally showed that their expression products are toxic to the Escherichia coli host. A subset of these toxic sequences was further evaluated through a series of functional assays exploring the mechanisms of their toxicity. Among these genes, our assays revealed novel toxins and restriction enzymes, and new classes of small, non-coding toxic RNAs that reproducibly inhibit E. coli growth. Further analyses also revealed abundant, short, toxic DNA fragments that were predicted to suppress E. coli growth by interacting with the replication initiator DnaA. Our results show that cloning gaps, once considered the result of technical problems, actually serve as a rich source for the discovery of biotechnologically valuable functions, and suggest new modes of antimicrobial interventions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".