MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138142090 · doi:10.1128/jb.188.1.124-131.2006

Hfq Is a Regulator of F-Plasmid TraJ and TraM Synthesis in<i>Escherichia coli</i>

2005· article· en· W2138142090 on OpenAlexafffund
William R. Will, Laura S. Frost

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bacteriology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyOperonPlasmidEscherichia coliMolecular biologyBacterial conjugationRNAMutantRepressorDNAGeneGene expressionGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The F plasmid of Escherichia coli allows horizontal DNA transfer between an F(+) donor cell and an F(-) recipient. Expression of the transfer genes is tightly controlled by a number of factors, including the following plasmid-encoded regulatory proteins: TraJ, the primary activator of the 33-kb tra operon, and the autoregulators TraM and TraY. Here, we demonstrate that the host RNA binding protein, Hfq, represses TraJ and TraM synthesis by destabilizing their respective mRNAs. Mating assays and immunoblot analyses for TraM and TraJ showed that transfer efficiency and protein levels increased in host cells containing a disruption in hfq compared to wild-type cells in stationary phase. The stability of transcripts containing a putative Hfq binding site located in the intergenic untranslated region between traM and traJ was increased in hfq mutant donor cells, suggesting that Hfq destabilizes these transcripts. Electrophoretic mobility shift assays demonstrated that Hfq specifically binds this region but not the antisense RNA, FinP, encoded on the opposite strand. Together, these findings indicate that Hfq regulates traM and traJ transcript stability by a mechanism separate from FinOP-mediated repression.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations34
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of BacteriologySame topicBacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyFrench-language works237,207