Plasmid persistence: costs, benefits, and the plasmid paradox
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plasmids are extrachromosomal DNA elements that can be found throughout bacteria, as well as in other domains of life. Nonetheless, the evolutionary processes underlying the persistence of plasmids are incompletely understood. Bacterial plasmids may encode genes for traits that are sometimes beneficial to their hosts, such as antimicrobial resistance, virulence, heavy metal tolerance, and the catabolism of unique nutrient sources. In the absence of selection for these traits, however, plasmids generally impose a fitness cost on their hosts. As such, plasmid persistence presents a conundrum: models predict that costly plasmids will be lost over time or that beneficial plasmid genes will be integrated into the host genome. However, laboratory and comparative studies have shown that plasmids can persist for long periods, even in the absence of positive selection. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain plasmid persistence, including host-plasmid co-adaptation, plasmid hitchhiking, cross-ecotype transfer, and high plasmid transfer rates, but there is no clear evidence that any one model adequately resolves the plasmid paradox.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it