MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Receptor-Binding Protein of <i>Lactococcus lactis</i> Phages: Identification and Characterization of the Saccharide Receptor-Binding Site

2006· article· en· W2163668511 on OpenAlexaff
Denise M. Tremblay, M. Tegoni, Silvia Spinelli, Valérie Campanacci, Stéphanie Blangy, Céline Huyghe, Aline Desmyter, Steve Labrie, Sylvain Moineau, Christian Cambillau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bacteriology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicBacteriophages and microbial interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLactococcus lactisBiologyBacteriophageBinding siteReceptorBiochemistryMutantBinding domainMolecular biologyBacteriaGeneEscherichia coliGeneticsLactic acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phage p2, a member of the lactococcal 936 phage species, infects Lactococcus lactis strains by binding initially to specific carbohydrate receptors using its receptor-binding protein (RBP). The structures of p2 RBP, a homotrimeric protein composed of three domains, and of its complex with a neutralizing llama VH domain (VHH5) have been determined (S. Spinelli, A. Desmyter, C. T. Verrips, H. J. de Haard, S. Moineau, and C. Cambillau, Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 13:85-89, 2006). Here, we show that VHH5 was able to neutralize 12 of 50 lactococcal phages belonging to the 936 species. Moreover, escape phage mutants no longer neutralized by VHH5 were isolated from 11 of these phages. All of the mutations (but one) cluster in the RBP/VHH5 interaction surface that delineates the receptor-binding area. A glycerol molecule, observed in the 1.7-A resolution structure of RBP, was found to bind tightly (Kd= 0.26 microM) in a crevice located in this area. Other saccharides bind RBP with comparable high affinity. These data prove the saccharidic nature of the bacterial receptor recognized by phage p2 and identify the position of its binding site in the RBP head domain.

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 score0.284
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations114
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of BacteriologySame topicBacteriophages and microbial interactionsFrench-language works237,207