MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128747019 · doi:10.1128/iai.00515-10

Phylogenetic Analysis of<i>Chlamydia trachomatis</i>Tarp and Correlation with Clinical Phenotype

2010· article· en· W2128747019 on OpenAlexafffund
Erika I. Lutter, Christine Bonner, Martin J. Holland, Robert J. Suchland, Walter E. Stamm, Travis J. Jewett, Grant McClarty, Ted Hackstadt

Bibliographic record

VenueInfection and Immunity · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsBiologyChlamydia trachomatisPhylogenetic treePhenotypePhylogeneticsVirologyPathogenGeneticsSequence analysisMicrobiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chlamydia trachomatis is the leading cause of infectious blindness worldwide and is the most commonly reported pathogen causing sexually transmitted infections. Tarp (translocated actin recruiting phosphoprotein), a type III secreted effector that mediates actin nucleation, is central to C. trachomatis infection. The phylogenetic analysis of tarP from reference strains as well as ocular, genital, and lymphogranuloma venereum (LGV) clinical isolates demonstrated an evolutionary relationship with disease phenotype, with LGV and ocular isolates branched into clades that were separate from the urogenital isolates. The sequence analysis of Tarp indicated a high degree of variability and identified trends within clinical groupings. Tarps from LGV strains contained the highest number of tyrosine-rich repeat regions (up to nine) and the fewest (two) predicted actin binding domains. The converse was noted for Tarp proteins from ocular isolates that contained up to four actin binding domains and as few as one tyrosine-rich repeat region. The results suggest that Tarp is among the few known genes to play a role in C. trachomatis adaptations to specific niches within the host.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations66
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfection and ImmunitySame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207