MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084744427 · doi:10.1139/w02-060

NoteThe stringent response genes<i>relA</i>and<i>spoT</i>are important for<i>Escherichia coli</i>biofilms under slow-growth conditions

2002· article· en· W2084744427 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Grant J. Balzer, Robert McLean

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial biofilms and quorum sensing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiofilmEscherichia coliChemostatMutantBiologyMicrobiologyStringent responseWild typeBacteriaGeneBiochemistryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to see whether the stringent response was involved in biofilm formation, Escherichia coli DS291 (MG1655), and its isogenic relA spoT derivative were grown for 48 h in a chemostat at dilution rates of 0.025 and 0.25 h(-1) under serine limitation. The absence of the stringent response genes relA and spoT had little effect on the planktonic cell concentrations. However, a significant (P < 0.001) reduction in biofilm cell density of the relA spoT mutants was seen at a doubling time of 40 h. At a doubling time of 4 h, differences in biofilm cell density were not significant. Scanning confocal laser microscopy demonstrated the cell densities of microcolonies in the relA spoT mutant to be lower than those in the wild type. Using a microtiter plate assay, we found biofilm formation in relA spoT mutants to be similarly reduced in minimal media but to be enhanced in rich media (Luria-Bertani broth). No significant differences in biofilm formation were observed between wild type and isogenic relA mutants under any growth conditions. Overall, these results suggest that both stringent response genes relA and spoT are important in nutrient-limited biofilms.

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 score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score0.852

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations67
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicBacterial biofilms and quorum sensingFrench-language works237,207