The Association of Virulence Factors with Genomic Islands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been noted that many bacterial virulence factor genes are located within genomic islands (GIs; clusters of genes in a prokaryotic genome of probable horizontal origin). However, such studies have been limited to single genera or isolated observations. We have performed the first large-scale analysis of multiple diverse pathogens to examine this association. We additionally identified genes found predominantly in pathogens, but not non-pathogens, across multiple genera using 631 complete bacterial genomes, and we identified common trends in virulence for genes in GIs. Furthermore, we examined the relationship between GIs and clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats (CRISPRs) proposed to confer resistance to phage. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We show quantitatively that GIs disproportionately contain more virulence factors than the rest of a given genome (p<1E-40 using three GI datasets) and that CRISPRs are also over-represented in GIs. Virulence factors in GIs and pathogen-associated virulence factors are enriched for proteins having more "offensive" functions, e.g. active invasion of the host, and are disproportionately components of type III/IV secretion systems or toxins. Numerous hypothetical pathogen-associated genes were identified, meriting further study. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This is the first systematic analysis across diverse genera indicating that virulence factors are disproportionately associated with GIs. "Offensive" virulence factors, as opposed to host-interaction factors, may more often be a recently acquired trait (on an evolutionary time scale detected by GI analysis). Newly identified pathogen-associated genes warrant further study. We discuss the implications of these results, which cement the significant role of GIs in the evolution of many pathogens.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".