MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The Impact of AB <sub>5</sub> Toxin Binding on Ganglioside Mimicry in <i>Campylobacter jejuni</i> Lipooligosaccharides

2016· article· en· W2891541643 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Robert T. Patry, Martin Ståhl, Jessica Sacher, Bruce A. Vallance, Christine M. Szymanski

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaChild and Family Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCampylobacter jejuniMolecular mimicryMicrobiologyBiologyToxinVibrio choleraeCholera toxinGangliosideBacteriaImmune systemGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Campylobacter jejuni is an important pathogen in the developed world, causing more cases of acute gastroenteritis than any other bacteria. C. jejuni is also the leading cause of paralysis in the world, causing Guillain‐Barré syndrome in humans by mimicry of nerve gangliosides with its surface exposed lipooligosaccharides (LOS). In some cases this mimicry elicits a breakdown in immune tolerance and results in self‐reactive antibodies which damage the nerve cells. Interestingly, the commonly mimicked GM1 ganglioside is also the main receptor for cholera toxin (CT) from Vibrio cholerae as well as heat‐labile enterotoxin (LT) from Escherichia coli . We have shown that these two toxins bind C. jejuni strains that mimic GM1 ganglioside and clear bacterial growth. The binding and clearing phenotypes were observed closely using transmission and scanning electron microscopy. C. jejuni 11168 shows natural variation in its ability to mimic GM1 gangliosides. Due to phase‐variation in cgtB encoding the galactosyltransferase, this strain exists as a mixture cells with and without GM1 mimics. It was unclear why the strain retained this variation, given that mimicry of host gangliosides lends a significant fitness advantage by camouflaging the bacterium from host immune defenses. Therefore, LOS was isolated from 11168 exposed to CT and LT toxin and compared to the unexposed by silver staining and far Western blotting. These experiments revealed the loss of a band from toxin exposed LOS and a marked decrease in the ability to bind toxin. Furthermore, when genomic DNA was isolated from these two groups and the cgtB gene was sequenced, the variation that existed in the unexposed group was no longer observed in the presence of the toxins. This led to the hypothesis that C. jejuni 11168 may retain variation in the cgtB gene in order to avoid negative effects upon contact with these toxins in the host or the environment. In addition, when we used a strain of E. coli engineered to display the GM1 mimic on its surface, no clearance was observed suggesting that this interaction is pathogen specific. Our study identifies a new interaction between C. jejuni and the AB 5 toxins that has not been previously described and provides a possible new relationship within the intestinal microbiome. Support or Funding Information Funding provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Alberta Innovates Technology Futures and Alberta Innovates Health Solutions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology→French-language works237,207→