Analysis of the Binding of Expansin Exl1, from <i>Pectobacterium carotovorum</i>, to Plant Xylem and Comparison to EXLX1 from <i>Bacillus subtilis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The plant xylem is a preferred niche for some important bacterial phytopathogens, some of them encoding expansin proteins, which bind plant cell walls. Yet, the identity of the substrate for bacterial expansins within the plant cell wall and the nature of its interaction with it are poorly known. Here, we determined the localization of two bacterial expansins with differing isoelectric points (and with differing binding patterns to cell wall extracts) on plant tissue through in vitro fluorophore labeling and confocal imaging. Differential localization was observed, in which Exl1 from Pectobacterium carotovorum located into the intercellular spaces between xylem vessels and adjacent cells of the plant xylem, whereas EXLX1 from Bacillus subtilis bound cell walls of most cell types. In isolated vascular tissue, however, both PcExl1 and BsEXLX1 preferentially bound to tracheary elements over the xylem fibers, even though both are composed of secondary cell walls. Fluorescence correlation spectroscopy, employed to analyze the interaction of expansins with isolated xylem, indicates that binding is governed by more than one factor, which could include interaction with more than one type of polymer in the fibers, such as cellulose and hemicellulose or pectin. Binding to different polysaccharides could explain the observed reduction of cellulolytic and xylanolytic activities in the presence of expansin, possibly because of competition for the substrate. Our findings are relevant for the comprehensive understanding of the pathogenesis by P. carotovorum during xylem invasion, a process in which Exl1 might be involved.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".