MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Control of Chromosome Replication in<i>Caulobacter Crescentus</i>

2002· review· en· W2097896589 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory T. Marczynski, Lucy Shapiro

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Microbiology · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsCaulobacter crescentusDnaABiologyDNA replicationGeneticsPre-replication complexResponse regulatorOrigin of replicationCircular bacterial chromosomeCell cycleCell biologyDNAGeneBacterial protein

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Caulobacter crescentus permits detailed analysis of chromosome replication control during a developmental cell cycle. Its chromosome replication origin (Cori) may be prototypical of the large and diverse class of alpha-proteobacteria. Cori has features that both affiliate and distinguish it from the Escherichia coli chromosome replication origin. For example, requirements for DnaA protein and RNA transcription affiliate both origins. However, Cori is distinguished by several features, and especially by five binding sites for the CtrA response regulator protein. To selectively repress and limit chromosome replication, CtrA receives both protein degradation and protein phosphorylation signals. The signal mediators, proteases, response regulators, and kinases, as well as Cori DNA and the replisome, all show distinct patterns of temporal and spatial organization during cell cycle progression. Future studies should integrate our knowledge of biochemical activities at Cori with our emerging understanding of cytological dynamics in C. crescentus and other bacteria.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations85
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of MicrobiologySame topicBacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyFrench-language works237,207