Origin and Evolution of a Novel DnaA-Like Plasmid Replication Type in Rhodobacterales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large extrachromosomal elements are widespread among Alphaproteobacteria, but it is unclear how up to a dozen low-copy plasmids can stably coexist within the same cell. We systematically analyzed the distribution of different replicons in about 40 completely sequenced genomes of the Roseobacter clade (Rhodobacterales) and surprisingly identified a novel plasmid replicon type. The conserved replication module comprises the characteristic partitioning operon (parAB) and a hitherto unknown replicase. The latter shows a weak homology to the chromosomal replication initiator DnaA and was accordingly named "DnaA-like." Phylogenetic analyses of the adjacent parAB genes document a common ancestry with repA- and repB-type plasmids and moreover indicate the presence of two dnaA-like compatibility groups. This conclusion is supported by conserved palindrome sequences within the replication module that probably represent crucial centromeric anchors for plasmid partitioning. The functionality of dnaA-like replicons was proven by transformation experiments in Phaeobacter gallaeciensis BS107 (DSM 17395). This Roseobacter strain furthermore allows the phenotypical monitoring of plasmid incompatibility, based on a 262-kb dnaA-like replicon required for the brown pigmentation of the bacterium. Uptake of an incompatible construct induces its loss, hence resulting in white colonies. Accordingly, we could substantiate the in silico predictions about stable maintenance of dnaA-like plasmids and thereby functionally validate our approach of plasmid classification based on phylogenetic analyses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".