MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100292674 · doi:10.1177/0810380

Inactivation of the <i>Streptococcus mutans fxpC</i> Gene Confers Resistance to Xylitol, a Caries-preventive Natural Carbohydrate Sweetener

2002· article· en· W2100292674 on OpenAlexaff
H. Benchabane, Louis-André Lortie, Nicole Buckley, L. Trahan, Michel Frenette

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dental Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsXylitolStreptococcus mutansOperonFructoseGeneBiochemistryMicrobiologyBiologyChemistryGeneticsBacteriaEscherichia coli

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Xylitol is transported by Streptococcus mutans via a constitutive phosphoenolpyruvate:fructose phosphotransferase system (PTS) composed of a IIABC protein. Spontaneous xylitol-resistant strains are depleted in constitutive fructose-PTS activity, exhibit additional phenotypes, and are associated with the caries-preventive properties of xylitol. Polymerase chain-reactions and chromosome walking were used to clone the fxp operon that codes for the constitutive fructose/xylitol-PTS. The operon contained three open reading frames: fxpA, which coded for a putative regulatory protein of the deoxyribose repressor (DeoR) family, fxpB, which coded for a 1-phosphofructokinase, and fxpC, which coded for a IIABC protein of the fructose-PTS family. Northern blot analysis revealed that these genes were co-transcribed into a 4.4-kb mRNA even in the absence of fructose. Inactivation of the fxpC gene conferred resistance to xylitol, confirming its function. The fxp operon is also present in the genomes of other xylitol-sensitive streptococci, which could explain their sensitivity to xylitol.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dental ResearchSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207