A comparative study of <b> <i>Bacillus cereus</i> </b> , <b> <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> </b> and <b> <i>Bacillus anthracis</i> </b> extracellular proteomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bacillus cereus, Bacillus thuringiensis and Bacillus anthracis are closely related species that share a similar genetic background but occupy different ecological niches. Virulence plasmids bearing genes coding for toxins, may explain, at least partly, this specialization. We have compared by 2-DE in the early stationary phase of growth the extracellular proteomes of three strains of these species that have lost their virulence plasmids. Proteins expected to be secreted or to belong to the cell wall or to the cytosol were found in the three proteomes. For the cell wall and cytosolic proteins located in the extracellular space, the three proteomes were similar. Cytosolic proteins included enolase, GroEL, PdhB, PdhD, SodA and others. Cell surface proteins were mainly autolysins, proteases, nucleotidases and OppAs. In contrast, the secreted proteins profiles of B. cereus and B. thuringiensis were quite different from that of B. anthracis. B. cereus and B. thuringiensis extracellular proteomes both contained large amounts of secreted degradative enzymes and toxins, including nine proteases, three phospholipases, two haemolysins and several enterotoxins. Most of the genes encoding these enzymes and toxins are controlled by the transcriptional activator PlcR. The extracellular proteome of the pXO1-, pXO2- B. anthracis 9131 strain contained only one secreted protein: the metalloprotease InhA1, also found in the proteomes of the two other strains and possibly involved in antibacterial peptide degradation.
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".