MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Chromosome Replication and Segregation in Bacteria

2012· review· en· W2157383543 on OpenAlexaff
Rodrigo Reyes‐Lamothe, Émilien Nicolas, David J. Sherratt

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Genetics · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilWellcome Trust
KeywordsBiologyChromosome segregationGeneticsGene duplicationCell divisionCircular bacterial chromosomePre-replication complexChromosomeDNA replicationOrigin of replicationOrigin recognition complexReplication (statistics)Control of chromosome duplicationPlasmidCellDNAEukaryotic DNA replicationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In dividing cells, chromosome duplication once per generation must be coordinated with faithful segregation of newly replicated chromosomes and with cell growth and division. Many of the mechanistic details of bacterial replication elongation are well established. However, an understanding of the complexities of how replication initiation is controlled and coordinated with other cellular processes is emerging only slowly. In contrast to eukaryotes, in which replication and segregation are separate in time, the segregation of most newly replicated bacterial genetic loci occurs sequentially soon after replication. We compare the strategies used by chromosomes and plasmids to ensure their accurate duplication and segregation and discuss how these processes are coordinated spatially and temporally with growth and cell division. We also describe what is known about the three conserved families of ATP-binding proteins that contribute to chromosome segregation and discuss their inter-relationships in a range of disparate bacteria.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.298 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations210
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of GeneticsSame topicBacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyFrench-language works237,207