Novel Proteins That Modulate Type IV Pilus Retraction Dynamics in <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pseudomonas aeruginosa uses type IV pili to colonize various materials and for surface-associated twitching motility. We previously identified five phylogenetically distinct alleles of pilA in P. aeruginosa, four of which occur in genetic cassettes with specific accessory genes (J. V. Kus, E. Tullis, D. G. Cvitkovitch, and L. L. Burrows, Microbiology 150:1315-1326, 2004). Each of the five pilin alleles, with and without its associated pilin accessory gene, was used to complement a group II PAO1 pilA mutant. Expression of group I or IV pilA genes restored twitching motility to the same extent as the PAO1 group II pilin. In contrast, poor twitching resulted from complementation with group III or group V pilA genes but increased significantly when the cognate tfpY or tfpZ accessory genes were cointroduced. The enhanced motility was linked to an increase in recoverable surface pili and not to alterations in total pilin pools. Expression of the group III or V pilins in a PAO1 pilA-pilT double mutant yielded large amounts of surface pili, regardless of the presence of the accessory genes. Therefore, poor piliation in the absence of the TfpY and TfpZ accessory proteins results from a net increase in PilT-mediated retraction. Similar phenotypes were observed for tfpY single and tfpY-pilT double knockout mutants of group III strain PA14. A PilAV-TfpY chimera produced few surface pili, showing that the accessory proteins are specific for their cognate pilin. The genetic linkage between specific pilin and accessory genes may be evolutionarily conserved because the accessory proteins increase pilus expression on the cell surface, thereby enhancing function.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".