Response of the Hyperthermophilic Archaeon <i>Sulfolobus solfataricus</i> to UV Damage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In order to characterize the genome-wide transcriptional response of the hyperthermophilic, aerobic crenarchaeote Sulfolobus solfataricus to UV damage, we used high-density DNA microarrays which covered 3,368 genetic features encoded on the host genome, as well as the genes of several extrachromosomal genetic elements. While no significant up-regulation of genes potentially involved in direct DNA damage reversal was observed, a specific transcriptional UV response involving 55 genes could be dissected. Although flow cytometry showed only modest perturbation of the cell cycle, strong modulation of the transcript levels of the Cdc6 replication initiator genes was observed. Up-regulation of an operon encoding Mre11 and Rad50 homologs pointed to induction of recombinational repair. Consistent with this, DNA double-strand breaks were observed between 2 and 8 h after UV treatment, possibly resulting from replication fork collapse at damaged DNA sites. The strong transcriptional induction of genes which potentially encode functions for pilus formation suggested that conjugational activity might lead to enhanced exchange of genetic material. In support of this, a statistical microscopic analysis demonstrated that large cell aggregates formed upon UV exposure. Together, this provided supporting evidence to a link between recombinational repair and conjugation events.
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".