Molecular Analysis of the Multiple GroEL Proteins of Chlamydiae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome sequencing revealed that all six chlamydiae genomes contain three groEL-like genes (groEL1, groEL2, and groEL3). Phylogenetic analysis of groEL1, groEL2, and groEL3 indicates that these genes are likely to have been present in chlamydiae since the beginning of the lineage. Comparison of deduced amino acid sequences of the three groEL genes with those of other organisms showed high homology only for groEL1, although comparison of critical amino acid residues that are required for polypeptide binding of the Escherichia coli chaperonin GroEL revealed substantial conservation in all three chlamydial GroELs. This was further supported by three-dimensional structural predictions. All three genes are expressed constitutively throughout the developmental cycle of Chlamydia trachomatis, although groEL1 is expressed at much higher levels than are groEL2 and groEL3. Transcription of groEL1, but not groEL2 and groEL3, was elevated when HeLa cells infected with C. trachomatis were subjected to heat shock. Western blot analysis with polyclonal antibodies raised against recombinant GroEL1, GroEL2, and GroEL3 demonstrated the presence of the three proteins in C. trachomatis elementary bodies, with GroEL1 being present in the largest amount. Only C. trachomatis groEL1 and groES together complemented a temperature-sensitive E. coli groEL mutant. Complementation did not occur with groEL2 or groEL3 alone or together with groES. The role for each of the three GroELs in the chlamydial developmental cycle and in disease pathogenesis requires further study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".