MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074911849 · doi:10.1080/10408410902733946

Intercellular communication in bacteria

2009· review· en· W2074911849 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Microbiology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial biofilms and quorum sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre
FundersBoettcher Foundation
KeywordsBacteriaBiologyIntracellularIntracellular parasiteCell signalingMicrobiologyCommunicationCell biologySignal transductionGeneticsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bacteria have been long considered primitive organisms, with a lifestyle focused on the survival and propagation of single cells. However, in the past few decades it became obvious that bacteria can display sophisticated group behaviors. For instance, bacteria can communicate amongst themselves and with their hosts, by producing, sensing, and responding to chemical signals. By doing so, they can sense their surroundings and adapt as to increase their chances of survival and propagation. Here, we review the discovery of bacterial intercellular communication, some of the signaling molecules identified to date, the role of intercellular signaling in symbiotic and pathogenic relationships between bacteria and their hosts and its implications for the development of new therapeutic strategies against human disease.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it