MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100429002 · doi:10.1128/mmbr.00063-12

Type IV Pili in Gram-Positive Bacteria

2013· review· en· W2100429002 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen B. Melville, Lisa Craig

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobiology and Molecular Biology Reviews · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial biofilms and quorum sensing
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesHealth Science Center, University of TennesseeFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRSNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPilusBiologyPilinBacteriaGram-negative bacteriaFlagellumArchaeaMicrobiologyBacterial proteinEscherichia coliGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Type IV pili (T4P) are surface-exposed fibers that mediate many functions in bacteria, including locomotion, adherence to host cells, DNA uptake (competence), and protein secretion and that can act as nanowires carrying electric current. T4P are composed of a polymerized protein, pilin, and their assembly apparatuses share protein homologs with type II secretion systems in eubacteria and the flagella of archaea. T4P are found throughout Gram-negative bacterial families and have been studied most extensively in certain model Gram-negative species. Recently, it was discovered that T4P systems are also widespread among Gram-positive species, in particular the clostridia. Since Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria have many differences in cell wall architecture and other features, it is remarkable how similar the T4P core proteins are between these organisms, yet there are many key and interesting differences to be found as well. In this review, we compare the two T4P systems and identify and discuss the features they have in common and where they differ to provide a very broad-based view of T4P systems across all eubacterial species.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.282 · 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.

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

Citations221
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrobiology and Molecular Biology ReviewsSame topicBacterial biofilms and quorum sensingFrench-language works237,207