MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153724714 · doi:10.1128/iai.03056-14

The Cpx System Regulates Virulence Gene Expression in Vibrio cholerae

2015· article· en· W2153724714 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicole Acosta, Stefan Pukatzki, Tracy Raivio

Bibliographic record

VenueInfection and Immunity · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVibrio bacteria research studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyVirulenceVibrio choleraeResponse regulatorCholera toxinSignal transductionPilusMicrobiologyMutantHistidine kinaseRegulation of gene expressionCell biologyVirulence factorRegulatorGeneGeneticsBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bacteria possess signal transduction pathways capable of sensing and responding to a wide variety of signals. The Cpx envelope stress response, composed of the sensor histidine kinase CpxA and the response regulator CpxR, senses and mediates adaptation to insults to the bacterial envelope. The Cpx response has been implicated in the regulation of a number of envelope-localized virulence determinants across bacterial species. Here, we show that activation of the Cpx pathway in Vibrio cholerae El Tor strain C6706 leads to a decrease in expression of the major virulence factors in this organism, cholera toxin (CT) and the toxin-coregulated pilus (TCP). Our results indicate that this occurs through the repression of production of the ToxT regulator and an additional upstream transcription factor, TcpP. The effect of the Cpx response on CT and TCP expression is mostly abrogated in a cyclic AMP receptor protein (CRP) mutant, although expression of the crp gene is unaltered. Since TcpP production is controlled by CRP, our data suggest a model whereby the Cpx response affects CRP function, which leads to diminished TcpP, ToxT, CT, and TCP production.

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 score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations36
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfection and ImmunitySame topicVibrio bacteria research studiesFrench-language works237,207