Bioinformatic Comparison of Bacterial Secretomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid increasing number of completed bacterial genomes provides a good opportunity to compare their proteomes. This study was undertaken to specifically compare and contrast their secretomes-the fraction of the proteome with predicted N-terminal signal sequences, both type I and type II. A total of 176 theoretical bacterial proteomes were examined using the ExProt program. Compared with the Gram-positives, the Gram-negative bacteria were found, on average, to contain a larger number of potential Sec-dependent sequences. In the Gram-negative bacteria but not in the others, there was a positive correlation between proteome size and secretome size, while there was no correlation between secretome size and pathogenicity. Within the Gram-negative bacteria, intracellular pathogens were found to have the smallest secretomes. However, the secretomes of certain bacteria did not fit into the observed pattern. Specifically, the secretome of Borrelia burgdoferi has an unusually large number of putative lipoproteins, and the signal peptides of mycoplasmas show closer sequence similarity to those of the Gram-negative bacteria. Our analysis also suggests that even for a theoretical minimal genome of 300 open reading frames, a fraction of this gene pool (up to a maximum of 20%) may code for proteins with Sec-dependent signal sequences.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".