MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767309644 · doi:10.1021/jacs.7b04728

Insights into the Mechanism of Action of the Two-Peptide Lantibiotic Lacticin 3147

2017· article· en· W2767309644 on OpenAlexafffund
Alireza Bakhtiary, Stephen A. Cochrane, Pascal Mercier, Ryan T. McKay, Mark Miskolzie, Clarissa S. Sit, John C. Vederas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Chemical Society · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Innovates - Health SolutionsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWellcome TrustBurroughs Wellcome Fund
KeywordsLantibioticsLipid IIChemistryLanthionineIsothermal titration calorimetryPyrophosphatePeptideBiochemistryPeptidoglycanAntimicrobial peptidesMechanism of actionStereochemistryIn vitroBacteriocinAntimicrobialEnzymeOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lacticin 3147 is a two peptide lantibiotc (LtnA1 and LtnA2) that displays nanomolar activity against many Gram-positive bacteria. Lacticin 3147 may exert its antimicrobial effect by several mechanisms. Isothermal titration calorimetry experiments show that only LtnA1 binds to the peptidoglycan precursor lipid II, which could inhibit peptidoglycan biosynthesis. An experimentally supported model of the resulting complex suggests that the key binding partners are the C-terminus of LtnA1 and pyrophosphate of lipid II. A combination of in vivo and in vitro assays indicates that LtnA1 and LtnA2 can induce rapid membrane lysis without the need for lipid II binding. However, the presence of lipid II substantially increases the activity of lacticin 3147. Furthermore, studies with synthetic LtnA2 analogues containing either desmethyl- or oxa-lanthionine rings confirm that the precise geometry of these rings is essential for this synergistic activity.

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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations53
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Chemical SocietySame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207