MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121915579 · doi:10.1139/o03-070

Biosynthesis, transport, and modification of lipid A

2004· review· en· W2121915579 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. Stephen Trent

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry and Cell Biology · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune Response and Inflammation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
KeywordsLipid ALipopolysaccharideBacteriaBacterial outer membraneBiochemistryGram-negative bacteriaBiosynthesisEnzymeLipid signalingPhospholipidBiologyChemistryEscherichia coliGeneMembrane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) is the major surface molecule of Gram-negative bacteria and consists of three distinct structural domains: O-antigen, core, and lipid A. The lipid A (endotoxin) domain of LPS is a unique, glucosamine-based phospholipid that serves as the hydrophobic anchor of LPS and is the bioactive component of the molecule that is associated with Gram-negative septic shock. The structural genes encoding the enzymes required for the biosynthesis of Escherchia coli lipid A have been identified and characterized. Lipid A is often viewed as a constitutively synthesized structural molecule. However, determination of the exact chemical structures of lipid A from diverse Gram-negative bacteria shows that the molecule can be further modified in response to environmental stimuli. These modifications have been implicated in virulence of pathogenic Gram-negative bacteria and represent one of the molecular mechanisms of microbial surface remodeling used by bacteria to help evade the innate immune response. The intent of this review is to discuss the enzymatic machinery involved in the biosynthesis of lipid A, transport of the molecule, and finally, those enzymes involved in the modification of its structure in response to environmental stimuli.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 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

Citations111
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistry and Cell BiologySame topicImmune Response and InflammationFrench-language works237,207