Atomic Force Microscopy of Cell Growth and Division in <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growth and division of Staphylococcus aureus was monitored by atomic force microscopy (AFM) and thin-section transmission electron microscopy (TEM). A good correlation of the structural events of division was found using the two microscopies, and AFM was able to provide new additional information. AFM was performed under water, ensuring that all structures were in the hydrated condition. Sequential images on the same structure revealed progressive changes to surfaces, suggesting the cells were growing while images were being taken. Using AFM small depressions were seen around the septal annulus at the onset of division that could be attributed to so-called murosomes (Giesbrecht et al., Arch. Microbiol. 141:315-324, 1985). The new cell wall formed from the cross wall (i.e., completed septum) after cell separation and possessed concentric surface rings and a central depression; these structures could be correlated to a midline of reactive material in the developing septum that was seen by TEM. The older wall, that which was not derived from a newly formed cross wall, was partitioned into two different surface zones, smooth and gel-like zones, with different adhesive properties that could be attributed to cell wall turnover. The new and old wall topographies are equated to possible peptidoglycan arrangements, but no conclusion can be made regarding the planar or scaffolding models.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".