MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Just scratching the surface: an expanding view of the Cpx envelope stress response

2011· review· en· W2115493975 on OpenAlexafffund
Stefanie Vogt, Tracy Raivio

Bibliographic record

VenueFEMS Microbiology Letters · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVibrio bacteria research studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFondation pour la Recherche Médicale
KeywordsPeriplasmic spaceCell envelopeCell biologyBiologyRegulonEnvelope (radar)Folding (DSP implementation)Computational biologyGeneticsGeneRegulation of gene expressionComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To detect and effectively respond to damage to the cell envelope, Gram-negative bacteria possess multiple envelope stress responses. Among these, the CpxAR two-component system has been shown to sense the presence of misfolded periplasmic proteins and increase the production of envelope-localized protein folding and degrading factors in response. However, recent studies have revealed that additional parameters, such as adhesion and central metabolism, can also be sensed by the Cpx signalling system. The discovery that the Cpx regulon contains dozens to hundreds of genes indicates that the cellular functions of the Cpx response are also likely much broader than previously realized. These newly recognized functions include other aspects of envelope maintenance, communication with other regulatory pathways, and pathogenesis. A new model is emerging in which the Cpx response integrates diverse signals and promotes cell survival by protecting the envelope in multiple ways.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations189
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEMS Microbiology LettersSame topicVibrio bacteria research studiesFrench-language works237,207