Use of Substrate-Induced Gene Expression in Metagenomic Analysis of an Aromatic Hydrocarbon-Contaminated Soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metagenomics allows the study of genes related to xenobiotic degradation in a culture-independent manner, but many of these studies are limited by the lack of genomic context for metagenomic sequences. This study combined a phenotypic screen known as substrate-induced gene expression (SIGEX) with whole-metagenome shotgun sequencing. SIGEX is a high-throughput promoter-trap method that relies on transcriptional activation of a green fluorescent protein (GFP) reporter gene in response to an inducing compound and subsequent fluorescence-activated cell sorting to isolate individual inducible clones from a metagenomic DNA library. We describe a SIGEX procedure with improved library construction from fragmented metagenomic DNA and improved flow cytometry sorting procedures. We used SIGEX to interrogate an aromatic hydrocarbon (AH)-contaminated soil metagenome. The recovered clones contained sequences with various degrees of similarity to genes (or partial genes) involved in aromatic metabolism, for example, nahG (salicylate oxygenase) family genes and their respective upstream nahR regulators. To obtain a broader context for the recovered fragments, clones were mapped to contigs derived from de novo assembly of shotgun-sequenced metagenomic DNA which, in most cases, contained complete operons involved in aromatic metabolism, providing greater insight into the origin of the metagenomic fragments. A comparable set of contigs was generated using a significantly less computationally intensive procedure in which assembly of shotgun-sequenced metagenomic DNA was directed by the SIGEX-recovered sequences. This methodology may have broad applicability in identifying biologically relevant subsets of metagenomes (including both novel and known sequences) that can be targeted computationally by in silico assembly and prediction tools.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".