Uropathogenic Escherichia coli Colicin-Like Usp and Associated Proteins: Their Evolution and Role in Pathogenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(See the major article by Nipič et al on pages 1545–52.) In utero, the mammalian fetus normally develops in an environment devoid of microbial challenges. This circumstance changes, however, during and immediately following the birthing process, as the newborn infant becomes colonized by a multitude of environmental bacterial, viral, and fungal species. For the most part, however, rather than causing harm, these microorganisms begin to develop into an individual's normal microflora. Moreover, many of the body's organs such as the skin, gastrointestinal, respiratory, and genitourinary tracts, as well as both the nervous and immune systems, continue to develop after birth in close collaboration with the normal microflora [1, 2]. We now realize that normal host development and aging occur in concert with the normal microflora and vice versa and that this process is complex, involving exquisite and complex lines of communication between the host and its normal microflora [3]. Cells of the normal microflora not only receive developmental instructions from the host, but they have also established elaborate signaling pathways for communicating among themselves. These lines of communication allow the different microorganisms within the normal microflora to identify friend from foe, to defend themselves from pathogenic invaders and predatory microbes, to assist each other by providing needed metabolic products and byproducts, and to create environmental niches that favor the colonization process of each member of the community. This process is evolutionary and, under normal circumstances, will lead to a mutual coexistence of the host with its normal microflora. It may be helpful for hypothesis generation to consider the host and the normal microflora as 2 coexisting complex multicellular individuals, both of which depend on each other to maintain a state of mutual health.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".