LuxO controls <i>luxR</i> expression in <i>Vibrio harveyi</i>: evidence for a common regulatory mechanism in <i>Vibrio</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quorum-sensing control of luminescence in Vibrio harveyi, which involves an indirect autoinducer-mediated phosphorelay signal transduction system, contrasts with the prototypical quorum-sensing system of Vibrio fischeri, in which the autoinducer and the transcriptional activator LuxR directly activate lux operon expression. In V. harveyi, a regulator not homologous to V. fischeri LuxR and also designated LuxR (LuxRvh), binds specifically to the lux operon promoter region and activates the expression of luminescence. A direct connection has not been identified previously between V. harveyi LuxRvh and the autoinducer-mediated phosphorelay system. Here, we demonstrate by mobility shift assays and measurement of luxRvh mRNA levels with luxO+ and luxO- cells that the central response regulator of the V. harveyi phosphorelay system (LuxO) represses the level of LuxRvh. Expression of a luxRvh-bearing plasmid strongly stimulated luminescence of a luxO- mutant but had no effect on luminescence of wild-type luxO+ cells, indicating tight regulation of luxRvh by LuxO. Furthermore, luxO null mutants of V. fischeri MJ-1 and two autoinducer mutants, MJ-211 (luxI-) and MJ-215 (luxI-ainS-), emitted more light and exhibited more elevated levels of litR, a newly identified V. harveyi luxRvh homologue, than their luxO+ counterparts. These results suggest that activity of the autoinducer-mediated phosphorelay system is coupled to LuxRvh/LitR control of luminescence through LuxO in V. harveyi and V. fischeri. The presence of homologues of V. harveyi LuxRvh, LuxO and other phosphorelay system proteins in various Vibrio species and the control of LuxRvh and its homologues by LuxO identified here in V. harveyi and V. fischeri and recently in Vibrio cholerae suggest that the luxO-luxRvh couple is a central feature of this quorum-sensing system in members of the genus Vibrio.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".