Baseplate assembly of phage Mu: Defining the conserved core components of contractile-tailed phages and related bacterial systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contractile phage tails are powerful cell puncturing nanomachines that have been co-opted by bacteria for self-defense against both bacteria and eukaryotic cells. The tail of phage T4 has long served as the paradigm for understanding contractile tail-like systems despite its greater complexity compared with other contractile-tailed phages. Here, we present a detailed investigation of the assembly of a "simple" contractile-tailed phage baseplate, that of Escherichia coli phage Mu. By coexpressing various combinations of putative Mu baseplate proteins, we defined the required components of this baseplate and delineated its assembly pathway. We show that the Mu baseplate is constructed through the independent assembly of wedges that are organized around a central hub complex. The Mu wedges are comprised of only three protein subunits rather than the seven found in the equivalent structure in T4. Through extensive bioinformatic analyses, we found that homologs of the essential components of the Mu baseplate can be identified in the majority of contractile-tailed phages and prophages. No T4-like prophages were identified. The conserved simple baseplate components were also found in contractile tail-derived bacterial apparatuses, such as type VI secretion systems, Photorhabdus virulence cassettes, and R-type tailocins. Our work highlights the evolutionary connections and similarities in the biochemical behavior of phage Mu wedge components and the TssF and TssG proteins of the type VI secretion system. In addition, we demonstrate the importance of the Mu baseplate as a model system for understanding bacterial phage tail-derived systems.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".