MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149775793 · doi:10.1099/mic.0.26912-0

Three genes, lgtF, lic2C and lpsA, have a primary role in determining the pattern of oligosaccharide extension from the inner core of Haemophilus influenzae LPS

2004· article· en· W2149775793 on OpenAlexaff
Derek W. Hood, Mary E. Deadman, Andrew D. Cox, Katherine Makepeace, Adèle Martin, James C. Richards, E. Richard Moxon

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobiology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBacterial Infections and Vaccines
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Biological Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeptoseHaemophilus influenzaeGeneGalactoseLipopolysaccharideBiologyMicrobiologyVirulenceOligosaccharideBacteriaGeneticsBiochemistryMutantImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) is a virulence determinant of Haemophilus influenzae and exhibits substantial heterogeneity in structure within and between strains. Key factors contributing to this heterogeneity are the genes required to add the first glycose to each of the three heptose residues of the LPS inner core. In each case this addition can facilitate further oligosaccharide extension. lgtF is invariably present in strains and the product has a function in adding the glucose to the first heptose. lic2C is present in half the strains and was found to add a glucose to the second heptose. Insertion of lic2C into a strain that does not naturally contain it resulted in hexose incorporation from the second heptose of the LPS. The product of the lpsA gene can add a glucose or galactose to the third heptose. By allelic replacement of lpsA between strains it is shown that the sequence of the gene can be the sole determinant of this specificity. Thus, lgtF, lic2C and lpsA make significant but very distinct contributions to the conservation and variable patterns of oligosaccharide extensions seen in H. influenzae LPS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations42
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrobiologySame topicBacterial Infections and VaccinesFrench-language works237,207