MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803225311 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2018.04.084

Functional Genomic Screening Reveals Core Modulators of Echinocandin Stress Responses in Candida albicans

2018· article· en· W2803225311 on OpenAlexafffund
Tavia Caplan, Elizabeth J. Polvi, Jinglin Lucy Xie, Shoshana Buckhalter, Michelle D. Leach, Nicole Robbins, Leah E. Cowen

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGenome Canada
KeywordsEchinocandinsEchinocandinCandida albicansBiologyCorpus albicansMutantCell biologyGeneMicrobiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Candida albicans is a leading cause of death due to fungal infection. Treatment of systemic candidiasis often relies on echinocandins, which disrupt cell wall synthesis. Resistance is readily acquired via mutations in the drug target gene, FKS1. Both basal tolerance and resistance to echinocandins require cellular stress responses. We performed a systematic analysis of 3,030 C. albicans mutants to define circuitry governing cellular responses to echinocandins. We identified 16 genes for which deletion or transcriptional repression enhanced echinocandin susceptibility, including components of the Pkc1-MAPK signaling cascade. We discovered that the molecular chaperone Hsp90 is required for the stability of Pkc1 and Bck1, establishing key mechanisms through which Hsp90 mediates echinocandin resistance. We also discovered that perturbation of the CCT chaperonin complex causes enhanced echinocandin sensitivity, altered cell wall architecture, and aberrant septin localization. Thus, we provide insights into the mechanisms by which cellular chaperones enable crucial responses to echinocandin-induced stress.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations58
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicAntifungal resistance and susceptibilityFrench-language works237,207