Differential Telomere Processing by<i>Borrelia</i>Telomere Resolvases In Vitro but Not In Vivo
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Causative agents of Lyme disease and relapsing fever, including Borrelia burgdorferi and Borrelia hermsii, respectively, are unusual among bacteria in that they possess a segmented genome with linear DNA molecules terminated by hairpin ends, known as telomeres. During replication, these telomeres are processed by the essential telomere resolvase, ResT, in a unique biochemical reaction known as telomere resolution. In this study, we report the identification of the B. hermsii resT gene through cross-species hybridization. Sequence comparison of the B. hermsii protein with the B. burgdorferi orthologue revealed 67% identity, including all the regions currently known to be crucial for telomere resolution. In vitro studies, however, indicated that B. hermsii ResT was unable to process a replicated B. burgdorferi type 2 telomere substrate. In contrast, in vivo cross-species complementation in which the native resT gene of B. burgdorferi was replaced with B. hermsii resT had no discernible effect, even though B. burgdorferi strain B31 carries at least two type 2 telomere ends. The B. burgdorferi ResT protein was also able to process two telomere spacing mutants in vivo that were unresolvable in vitro. The unexpected differential telomere processing in vivo versus in vitro by the two telomere resolvases suggests the presence of one or more accessory factors in vivo that are normally involved in the reaction. Our current results are also expected to facilitate further studies into ResT structure and function, including possible interaction with other Borrelia proteins.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it