MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Double locking of an <i>Escherichia coli</i> promoter by two repressors prevents premature colicin expression and cell lysis

2012· article· en· W2111228244 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Matej Butala, Silva Sonjak, Simona Kamenšek, Milan Hodošček, Douglas F. Browning, Darja Žgur‐Bertok, Stephen Busby

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Microbiology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Circulatory and Respiratory HealthBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
KeywordsRepressor lexAColicinRepressorBiologySOS responseOperonDNA damageTranscription (linguistics)Transcription factorEscherichia coliPromoterDNA repairGeneDNAGeneticsCell biologyMolecular biologyGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The synthesis of Eschericha coli colicins is lethal to the producing cell and is repressed during normal growth by the LexA transcription factor, which is the master repressor of the SOS system for repair of DNA damage. Following DNA damage, LexA is inactivated and SOS repair genes are induced immediately, but colicin production is delayed and induced only in terminally damaged cells. The cause of this delay is unknown. Here we identify the global transcription repressor, IscR, as being directly responsible for the delay in colicin K expression during the SOS response, and identify the DNA target for IscR at the colicin K operon promoter. Our results suggest that, IscR stabilizes LexA at the cka promoter after DNA damage thus, preventing its cleavage and inactivation, and this cooperation ensures that suicidal colicin K production is switched on only as a last resort. A similar mechanism operates at the regulatory region of other colicins and, hence, we suggest that many promoters that control the expression of 'lethal' genes are double locked.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.216 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations33
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular MicrobiologySame topicBacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyFrench-language works237,207