<i>Fusobacterium nucleatum</i>, the first Gram-negative bacterium demonstrated to produce polyglutamate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poly-gamma-glutamate has been described in many Gram-positive organisms. When anchored to the surface, it is a capsule and as such a virulence factor. Based on sequence similarities, few Gram-negative organisms have been suggested to synthesize poly-gamma-glutamate. For the first time, a Gram-negative bacterium, Fusobacterium nucleatum, is shown to produce and secrete poly-gamma-glutamate. Putative poly-gamma-glutamate-synthesizing genes from Gram-negative organisms have been compared with their Gram-positive homologs by in silico analysis, i.e., gene sequence and phylogenetic analysis. Clusters of three instead of four genes were highlighted by our screen. The products of the first two genes display similarity with their Gram-positive equivalents, yet the sequences from the Gram-negative organisms can be distinguished from those of the Gram-positives. Interestingly, the sequence of the predicted product of the third gene is conserved among Gram-negative bacteria but displays no similarity to that of either the third or fourth gene of the Gram-positive operons. It is suggested that, like for Gram-positive bacteria, poly-gamma-glutamate has a role in virulence for pathogens and one in survival for other Gram-negative 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".