Controlled Expression of an <i>rpoS</i> Antisense RNA Can Inhibit RpoS Function in <i>Escherichia coli</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We show that an inducible rpoS antisense RNA complementary to the rpoS message can inhibit expression of RpoS in both exponential and stationary phases and can attenuate expression of the rpoS regulon in Escherichia coli. Plasmids containing rpoS antisense DNA expressed under the control of the T7lac promoter and T7 RNA polymerase were constructed, and expression of the rpoS antisense RNA was optimized in the pET expression system. rpoS antisense RNA levels could be manipulated to effectively control the expression of RpoS and RpoS-dependent genes. RpoS expression was inhibited by the expression of rpoS antisense RNA in both exponential and stationary phases in E. coli. RpoS-dependent catalase HPII was also downregulated, as determined by catalase activity assays and with native polyacrylamide gels stained for catalase. Induced RpoS antisense expression also reduced the level of RpoS-dependent glycogen synthesis. These results demonstrate that controlled expression of antisense RNA can be used to attenuate expression of a regulator required for the expression of host adaptation functions and may offer a basis for designing effective antimicrobial agents.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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, 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".