Intergenic Sequence Comparison of Escherichia coli Isolates Reveals Lifestyle Adaptations but Not Host Specificity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Establishing the risk of human infection is one of the goals of public health. For bacterial pathogens, the virulence and zoonotic potential can often be related to their host source. Escherichia coli bacteria are common contaminants of water associated with human recreation and consumption, and many strains are pathogenic. In this study, we analyzed three promoter-containing intergenic regions from 284 diverse E. coli isolates in an attempt to identify molecular signatures associated with specific host types. Promoter sequences controlling production of curli fimbriae, flagella, and nutrient import yielded a phylogenetic tree with isolates clustered by established phylogenetic grouping (A, B1, B2, and D) but not by host source. Virulence genes were more prevalent in groups B2 and D isolates and in human isolates. Group B1 isolates, primarily from nonhuman sources, were the most genetically similar, indicating that they lacked molecular adaptations to specific host environments and were likely host generalists. Conversely, B2 isolates, primarily from human sources, displayed greater genetic distances and were more likely to be host adapted. In agreement with these hypotheses, prevalence of σ(S) activity and the rdar morphotype, phenotypes associated with environmental survival, were significantly higher in B1 isolates than in B2 isolates. Based on our findings, we speculate that E. coli host specificity is not defined by genome-wide sequence changes but, rather, by the presence or absence of specific genes and associated promoter elements. Furthermore, the requirements for colonization of the human gastrointestinal tract may lead to E. coli lifestyle changes along with selection for increased virulence.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".