MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Dual Binding Site for Integration Host Factor and the Response Regulator CtrA inside the <i>Caulobacter crescentus</i> Replication Origin

2003· article· en· W2144695459 on OpenAlexaff
Rania Siam, Ann Karen C. Brassinga, Gregory T. Marczynski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bacteriology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaulobacter crescentusBiologyOrigin of replicationDNA replicationBinding sitePlasmidDNA-binding proteinGeneticsCell cycleTranscription factorDNAMolecular biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The response regulator CtrA controls chromosome replication by binding to five sites, a, b, c, d, and e, inside the Caulobacter crescentus replication origin (Cori). In this study, we demonstrate that integration host factor (IHF) binds Cori over the central CtrA binding site c. Surprisingly, IHF and CtrA share DNA recognition sequences. Rather than promoting cooperative binding, IHF binding hinders CtrA binding to site c and nearby site d. Unlike other CtrA binding sites, DNA mutations in the CtrA c/IHF site uniquely impair autonomous Cori plasmid replication. These mutations also alter transcription from distant promoters more than 100 bp away. When the CtrA c/IHF site was deleted from the chromosome, these cells grew slowly and became selectively intolerant to a CtrA phosphor-mimic allele (D51E). Since CtrA protein concentration decreases during the cell cycle as IHF protein concentration increases, we propose a model in which IHF displaces CtrA in order to bend Cori and promote efficient chromosome replication.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations36
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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