MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150018254 · doi:10.1093/nar/gkt249

Mechanism of DNA organization by Mycobacterium tuberculosis protein Lsr2

2013· article· en· W2150018254 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yuanyuan Qu, Ci Ji Lim, Yixun R. Whang, Jun Liu, Jie Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueNucleic Acids Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMechanobiology Institute, Singapore
KeywordsNucleoidBiologyNucleoproteinDNADNA-binding proteinMycobacterium tuberculosisGeneGeneticsCircular bacterial chromosomeCell biologyMolecular biologyEscherichia coliMicrobiologyTranscription factorDNA replicationTuberculosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bacterial nucleoid-associated proteins, such as H-NS-like proteins in Enterobacteriaceae, are abundant DNA-binding proteins that function in chromosomal DNA organization and gene transcription regulation. The Mycobacterium tuberculosis Lsr2 protein has been proposed to be the first identified H-NS analogue in Gram-positive bacteria based on its capability to complement numerous in vivo functions of H-NS. Here, we report that Lsr2 cooperatively binds to DNA forming a rigid Lsr2 nucleoprotein complex that restricts DNA accessibility, similar to H-NS. On large DNA, the rigid Lsr2 nucleoprotein complexes can mediate DNA condensation into highly compact DNA conformations. In addition, the responses of Lsr2 nucleoprotein complex to environmental factors (salt concentration, temperature and pH) were studied over physiological ranges. These results provide mechanistic insights into how Lsr2 may mediate its gene silencing, genomic DNA protection and organization functions in vivo. Finally, our results strongly support that Lsr2 is an H-NS-like protein in Gram-positive bacteria from a structural perspective.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.663

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations48
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNucleic Acids ResearchSame topicBacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyFrench-language works237,207