A single‐molecule approach to <scp>DNA</scp> replication in <i><scp>E</scp>scherichia coli</i> cells demonstrated that <scp>DNA</scp> polymerase <scp>III</scp> is a major determinant of fork speed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The replisome catalyses DNA synthesis at a DNA replication fork. The molecular behaviour of the individual replisomes, and therefore the dynamics of replication fork movements, in growing Escherichia coli cells remains unknown. DNA combing enables a single-molecule approach to measuring the speed of replication fork progression in cells pulse-labelled with thymidine analogues. We constructed a new thymidine-requiring strain, eCOMB (E. coli for combing), that rapidly and sufficiently incorporates the analogues into newly synthesized DNA chains for the DNA-combing method. In combing experiments with eCOMB, we found the speed of most replication forks in the cells to be within the narrow range of 550-750 nt s(-1) and the average speed to be 653 ± 9 nt s(-1) (± SEM). We also found the average speed of the replication fork to be only 264 ± 9 nt s(-1) in a dnaE173-eCOMB strain producing a mutant-type of the replicative DNA polymerase III (Pol III) with a chain elongation rate (300 nt s(-1) ) much lower than that of the wild-type Pol III (900 nt s(-1) ). This indicates that the speed of chain elongation by Pol III is a major determinant of replication fork speed in E. coli cells.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".