MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Relaxosome function and conjugation regulation in F‐like plasmids – a structural biology perspective

2012· review· en· W2144831477 on OpenAlexafffund
Joyce J. W. Wong, Jun Lu, J. N. Mark Glover

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Microbiology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyBacterial conjugationPlasmidDNAOperonRNAHelicaseCell biologyGeneticsGeneEscherichia coli

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tra operon of the prototypical F plasmid and its relatives enables transfer of a copy of the plasmid to other bacterial cells via the process of conjugation. Tra proteins assemble to form the transferosome, the transmembrane pore through which the DNA is transferred, and the relaxosome, a complex of DNA-binding proteins at the origin of DNA transfer. F-like plasmid conjugation is characterized by a high degree of plasmid specificity in the interactions of tra components, and is tightly regulated at the transcriptional, translational and post-translational levels. Over the past decade, X-ray crystallography of conjugative components has yielded insights into both specificity and regulatory mechanisms. Conjugation is repressed by FinO, an RNA chaperone which increases the lifetime of the small RNA, FinP. Recent work has resulted in a detailed model of FinO/FinP interactions and the discovery of a family of FinO-like RNA chaperones. Relaxosome components include TraI, a relaxase/helicase, and TraM, which mediates signalling between the transferosome and relaxosome for transfer initiation. The structures of TraI and TraM bound to oriT DNA reveal the basis of specific recognition of DNA for their cognate plasmid. Specificity also exists in TraI and TraM interactions with the transferosome protein TraD.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.248 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations98
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular MicrobiologySame topicBacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyFrench-language works237,207