Analysis of Strains Lacking Known Osmolyte Accumulation Mechanisms Reveals Contributions of Osmolytes and Transporters to Protection against Abiotic Stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Osmolyte accumulation and release can protect cells from abiotic stresses. In Escherichia coli, known mechanisms mediate osmotic stress-induced accumulation of K(+) glutamate, trehalose, or zwitterions like glycine betaine. Previous observations suggested that additional osmolyte accumulation mechanisms (OAMs) exist and their impacts may be abiotic stress specific. Derivatives of the uropathogenic strain CFT073 and the laboratory strain MG1655 lacking known OAMs were created. CFT073 grew without osmoprotectants in minimal medium with up to 0.9 M NaCl. CFT073 and its OAM-deficient derivative grew equally well in high- and low-osmolality urine pools. Urine-grown bacteria did not accumulate large amounts of known or novel osmolytes. Thus, CFT073 showed unusual osmotolerance and did not require osmolyte accumulation to grow in urine. Yeast extract and brain heart infusion stimulated growth of the OAM-deficient MG1655 derivative at high salinity. Neither known nor putative osmoprotectants did so. Glutamate and glutamine accumulated after growth with either organic mixture, and no novel osmolytes were detected. MG1655 derivatives retaining individual OAMs were created. Their abilities to mediate osmoprotection were compared at 15°C, 37°C without or with urea, and 42°C. Stress protection was not OAM specific, and variations in osmoprotectant effectiveness were similar under all conditions. Glycine betaine and dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) were the most effective. Trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO) was a weak osmoprotectant and a particularly effective urea protectant. The effectiveness of glycine betaine, TMAO, and proline as osmoprotectants correlated with their preferential exclusion from protein surfaces, not with their propensity to prevent protein denaturation. Thus, their effectiveness as stress protectants correlated with their ability to rehydrate the cytoplasm.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".