MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101051206 · doi:10.1099/mic.0.038794-0

Quorum sensing in bacterial virulence

2010· review· en· W2101051206 on OpenAlexafffund
L. Caetano M. Antunes, Rosana B. R. Ferreira, Michelle M. C. Buckner, B. Brett Finlay

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobiology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial biofilms and quorum sensing
Canadian institutionsCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsVirulenceQuorum sensingMicrobiologyBiologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bacteria communicate through the production of diffusible signal molecules termed autoinducers. The molecules are produced at basal levels and accumulate during growth. Once a critical concentration has been reached, autoinducers can activate or repress a number of target genes. Because the control of gene expression by autoinducers is cell-density-dependent, this phenomenon has been called quorum sensing. Quorum sensing controls virulence gene expression in numerous micro-organisms. In some cases, this phenomenon has proven relevant for bacterial virulence in vivo. In this article, we provide a few examples to illustrate how quorum sensing can act to control bacterial virulence in a multitude of ways. Several classes of autoinducers have been described to date and we present examples of how each of the major types of autoinducer can be involved in bacterial virulence. As quorum sensing controls virulence, it has been considered an attractive target for the development of new therapeutic strategies. We discuss some of the new strategies to combat bacterial virulence based on the inhibition of bacterial quorum sensing systems.

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)0.001
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations532
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrobiologySame topicBacterial biofilms and quorum sensingFrench-language works237,207