MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166340741 · doi:10.1099/mic.0.2006/001917-0

Entry exclusion in F-like plasmids requires intact TraG in the donor that recognizes its cognate TraS in the recipient

2007· article· en· W2166340741 on OpenAlexaff
Gerald F. Audette, J. Manchak, Perrin H. Beatty, William Klimke, Laura S. Frost

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobiology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSecretionPlasmidPeriplasmic spaceBiologyCell biologyCellDNAMolecular biologyGeneticsGeneBiochemistryEscherichia coli

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mating pair stabilization (Mps) protein of the F plasmid, TraG, is unique to F-like type IV secretion systems. TraG is a polytopic inner-membrane protein with a large C-terminal periplasmic domain that is required for piliation and Mps, whereas the N-terminal region is sufficient for pilus synthesis. The C-terminal region of TraG is thought to be cleaved by the host signal peptidase I to give a fragment called TraG* that is responsible for Mps. Using mutational analysis and cell localization studies, it was shown that TraG* is most probably an artifact caused by non-specific degradation. TraS (173 aa in F), which is involved in entry exclusion (Eex), blocks redundant conjugative DNA synthesis and transport between donor cells, suggesting that it interferes with a signalling pathway required to trigger DNA transfer. Using the F and R100 plasmids, TraG in the donor cell was found to recognize TraS in the recipient cell inner membrane, in a plasmid-specific manner. This activity mapped to aa 610-673 in F TraG, the only region that differs significantly from R100 TraG. Expression of traG or traG* in a recipient cell did not affect mating ability or Eex. These results suggest that TraG may be translocated to the recipient cell, where it contacts the inner membrane, initiating transfer, a process that is blocked by TraS.

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)0.001
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 score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations75
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrobiologySame topicBacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyFrench-language works237,207