MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Localization of heat shock proteins in clinical<i>Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans</i>strains and their effects on epithelial cell proliferation

2000· article· en· W2132440445 on OpenAlexafffund
Susanna Paju, Florence Goulhen, Sirkka Asikainen, Daniel Grenier, D. Mayrand, Veli-Jukka Uitto

Bibliographic record

VenueFEMS Microbiology Letters · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHeat shock proteins research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversité Laval
FundersMedical Research CouncilMedical Research Council CanadaHelsingin Yliopisto
KeywordsGroELActinobacillusPeriplasmic spaceHeat shock proteinCytoplasmBiologyMicrobiologyHSP60Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitansBacterial outer membraneMembrane rufflingCellCell biologyMolecular biologyHsp70CytoskeletonBiochemistryGeneBacteriaEscherichia coliPorphyromonas gingivalisGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans is an important pathogen in periodontitis. In the present study we localized the GroEL- and DnaK-like heat shock proteins (Hsp) in subcellular fractions of 12 A. actinomycetemcomitans strains of various clinical origin and compared their effects on periodontal epithelial cell proliferation and viability. In all strains, GroEL-like protein was found in the membrane, cytoplasm, and periplasm, whereas DnaK-like protein was present in the cytoplasm and periplasm. No correlation was observed between the Hsp expression and the serotype or origin of A. actinomycetemcomitans strains. The bacterial membrane fractions that expressed the GroEL-like protein moderately or strongly induced epithelial cell proliferation more strongly than strains that expressed the protein weakly. The results suggest that GroEL-like Hsp may play a role in the virulence of A. actinomycetemcomitans by increasing epithelial proliferation.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations49
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEMS Microbiology LettersSame topicHeat shock proteins researchFrench-language works237,207