Inversions over the Terminus Region in<i>Salmonella</i>and<i>Escherichia coli</i>: IS<i>200</i>s as the Sites of Homologous Recombination Inverting the Chromosome of<i>Salmonella enterica</i>Serovar Typhi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genomic rearrangements (duplications and inversions) in enteric bacteria such as Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium LT2 and Escherichia coli K12 are frequent (10(-3) to 10(-5)) in culture, but in wild-type strains these genomic rearrangements seldom survive. However, inversions commonly survive in the terminus of replication (TER) region, where bidirectional DNA replication terminates; nucleotide sequences from S. enterica serovar Typhimurium LT2, S. enterica serovar Typhi CT18, E. coli K12, and E. coli O157:H7 revealed genomic inversions spanning the TER region. Assuming that S. enterica serovar Typhimurium LT2 represents the ancestral genome structure, we found an inversion of 556 kb in serovar Typhi CT18 between two of the 25 IS200 elements and an inversion of about 700 kb in E. coli K12 and E. coli O157:H7. In addition, there is another inversion of 500 kb in E. coli O157:H7 compared with E. coli K12. PCR analysis confirmed that all S. enterica serovar Typhi strains tested, but not strains of other Salmonella serovars, have an inversion at the exact site of the IS200 insertions. We conclude that inversions of the TER region survive because they do not significantly change replication balance or because they are part of the compensating mechanisms to regain chromosome balance after it is disrupted by insertions, deletions, or other inversions.
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".