MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Periplasmic Stress and ECF Sigma Factors

2001· review· en· W2146731040 on OpenAlexaff
Tracy Raivio, Thomas J. Silhavy

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Microbiology · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriplasmic spaceSigma factorCell envelopeCell biologyBacterial outer membraneBiologyResponse regulatorPilusRegulatorInner membraneMutantBiochemistryEscherichia coliGeneRNA polymerase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Envelope stress responses play important physiological roles in a variety of processes, including protein folding, cell wall biosynthesis, and pathogenesis. Many of these responses are controlled by extracytoplasmic function (ECF) sigma factors that respond to external signals by means of a membrane-localized anti-sigma factor. One of the best-characterized, ECF-regulated responses is the sigma(E) envelope stress response of Escherichia coli. The sigma(E) pathway ensures proper assembly of outer-membrane proteins (OMP) by controlling expression of genes involved in OMP folding and degradation in response to envelope stresses that disrupt these processes. Prevailing evidence suggests that, in E. coli, a second envelope stress response controlled by the Cpx two-component system ensures proper pilus assembly. The sensor kinase CpxA recognizes misfolded periplasmic proteins, such as those generated during pilus assembly, and transduces this signal to the response regulator CpxR through conserved phosphotransfer reactions. Phosphorylated CpxR activates transcription of periplasmic factors necessary for pilus assembly.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.008

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations386
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of MicrobiologySame topicBacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyFrench-language works237,207