Single Molecule Fluorescence Study of the Bacillus thuringiensis Toxin Cry1Aa Reveals Tetramerization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pore-forming toxins constitute a class of potent virulence factors that attack their host membrane in a two- or three-step mechanism. After binding to the membrane, often aided by specific receptors, they form pores in the membrane. Pore formation either unfolds a cytolytic activity in itself or provides a pathway to introduce enzymes into the cells that act upon intracellular proteins. The elucidation of the pore-forming mechanism of many of these toxins represents a major research challenge. As the toxins often refold after entering the membrane, their structure in the membrane is unknown, and key questions such as the stoichiometry of individual pores and their mechanism of oligomerization remain unanswered. In this study, we used single subunit counting based on fluorescence spectroscopy to explore the oligomerization process of the Cry1Aa toxin of Bacillus thuringiensis. Purified Cry1Aa toxin molecules labeled at different positions in the pore-forming domain were inserted into supported lipid bilayers, and the photobleaching steps of single fluorophores in the fluorescence time traces were counted to determine the number of subunits of each oligomer. We found that toxin oligomerization is a highly dynamic process that occurs in the membrane and that tetramers represent the final form of the toxins in a lipid bilayer environment.
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) | 0.001 | 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".