MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146639370 · doi:10.1128/cmr.00043-12

Adaptive and Mutational Resistance: Role of Porins and Efflux Pumps in Drug Resistance

2012· review· en· W2146639370 on OpenAlexafffund
Lucía Fernández, Robert E. W. Hancock

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Microbiology Reviews · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsEffluxAntibioticsAntibiotic resistanceDrug resistanceBiologyMicrobiologyBacteriaGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The substantial use of antibiotics in the clinic, combined with a dearth of new antibiotic classes, has led to a gradual increase in the resistance of bacterial pathogens to these compounds. Among the various mechanisms by which bacteria endure the action of antibiotics, those affecting influx and efflux are of particular importance, as they limit the interaction of the drug with its intracellular targets and, consequently, its deleterious effects on the cell. This review evaluates the impact of porins and efflux pumps on two major types of resistance, namely, mutational and adaptive types of resistance, both of which are regarded as key phenomena in the global rise of antibiotic resistance among pathogenic microorganisms. In particular, we explain how adaptive and mutational events can dramatically influence the outcome of antibiotic therapy by altering the mechanisms of influx and efflux of antibiotics. The identification of porins and pumps as major resistance markers has opened new possibilities for the development of novel therapeutic strategies directed specifically against these mechanisms.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 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

Citations871
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Microbiology ReviewsSame topicAntibiotic Resistance in BacteriaFrench-language works237,207