MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168997454 · doi:10.1099/mic.0.057240-0

Ageing in Escherichia coli requires damage by an extrinsic agent

2012· article· en· W2168997454 on OpenAlexaff
Camilla U. Rang, Annie Y. Peng, Art F. Y. Poon, Lin Chao

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobiology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgeingEscherichia coliBiologyOxidative damageBacteriaOxidative stressBiochemistryGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence for ageing in symmetrically dividing bacteria such as Escherichia coli has historically been conflicting. Early work found weak or no evidence. More recent studies found convincing evidence, but negative results are still encountered. Because bacterial ageing is believed to result from non-genetic (e.g. oxidative) damage, we tested the possibility that the negative outcomes resulted from the lack of an extrinsic damage agent. We found that streptomycin, which produces mistranslated proteins that are more vulnerable to oxidation, was able to induce both damage and ageing in bacterial populations. A dosage effect relating the level of damage to the concentration of streptomycin was observed. Our results explain the previous inconsistencies, because all studies that failed to find evidence for bacterial ageing did not use a damage agent. However, all studies that succeeded in finding evidence utilized fluorescent proteins as a visual marker. We suggest that ageing in those studies was induced by the harmful effects of an extrinsic factor, such as the proteins themselves or the excitation light. Thus, all of the earlier studies can be reconciled and bacterial ageing is a real phenomenon. However, the study and observation of bacterial ageing require the addition of an extrinsic damage agent.

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 score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations43
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrobiologySame topicBacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyFrench-language works237,207