MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2293483182 · doi:10.1111/mec.13603

Interpreting phenotypic antibiotic tolerance and persister cells as evolution via epigenetic inheritance

2016· article· en· W2293483182 on OpenAlexafffund
Troy Day

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFogarty International CenterNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Homeland Security
KeywordsBiologyEpigeneticsInheritance (genetic algorithm)GeneticsPhenotypeContext (archaeology)GeneEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epigenetic inheritance is the transmission of nongenetic material such as gene expression levels, RNA and other biomolecules from parents to offspring. There is a growing realization that such forms of inheritance can play an important role in evolution. Bacteria represent a prime example of epigenetic inheritance because a large array of cellular components is transmitted to offspring, in addition to genetic material. Interestingly, there is an extensive and growing empirical literature showing that many bacteria can form 'persister' cells that are phenotypically resistant or tolerant to antibiotics, but most of these results are not interpreted within the context of epigenetic inheritance. Instead, persister cells are usually viewed as a genetically encoded bet-hedging strategy that has evolved in response to a fluctuating environment. Here I show, using a relatively simple model, that many of these empirical findings can be more simply understood as arising from a combination of epigenetic inheritance and cellular noise. I therefore suggest that phenotypic drug tolerance in bacteria might represent one of the best-studied examples of evolution under epigenetic inheritance.

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 score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.204 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular EcologySame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207