MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cloning and characterization of the eae gene from a dog attaching and effacing Escherichia coli strain 4221

2006· article· en· W2075151436 on OpenAlexaff
Hongyan An, John M. Fairbrother, J. Daniel Dubreuil, Josée Harel

Bibliographic record

VenueFEMS Microbiology Letters · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEscherichia coli research studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEscherichia coliCitrobacter freundiiBiologyFusion proteinMicrobiologyPeptide sequenceNucleic acid sequenceMolecular biologyEnteropathogenic Escherichia coliMaltose-binding proteinGeneVirologyEnterobacteriaceaeBiochemistryRecombinant DNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have cloned and determined the nucleotide sequence of the eae gene from a dog attaching and effacing (A/E) Escherichia coli (DEPEC) strain 4221. When comparing the predicted amino acid sequence of the eaeDEPEC to that of the Eae proteins from enteropathogenic E. coli (EPEC), enterohaemorrhagic E. coli O157:H7 (EHEC), Citrobacter freundii biotype 4280, and a swine A/E E. coli strain O45 (PEPEC), the overall sequence identity was 84, 81, 83 and 83%, respectively, with the greatest divergence at the C-terminal end, the putative receptor-binding portion. Interestingly, the DEPEC Eae shares the greatest identity at the C-terminal region with the Citrobacter freundii Eae protein. We have constructed and purified a maltose-binding fusion protein (MBP) containing the product of the entire eae gene of the DEPEC strain 4221. Binding of MBP-EaeDEPEC fusion protein to HEp-2 cells was demonstrated by immunofluorescence microscopy. In addition, the Eae protein of DEPEC (4221) demonstrated a strong serological relationship with that of EPEC (E2348/69) as observed using a polyclonal antiserum against MBP-EaeDEPEC fusion protein.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEMS Microbiology LettersSame topicEscherichia coli research studiesFrench-language works237,207