MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891660205 · doi:10.1002/bies.201800091

The Abc of Phosphonate Breakdown: A Mechanism for Bacterial Survival

2018· review· en· W2891660205 on OpenAlexfundno aff
M. Cemre Manav, Nicholas Sofos, Bjarne Hove‐Jensen, Ditlev E. Brodersen

Bibliographic record

VenueBioEssays · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicTrace Elements in Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNovo Nordisk FondenNovo NordiskQueen's UniversityDanmarks GrundforskningsfondNational Research Foundation
KeywordsPhosphonateEnzymeLyaseLimitingBiochemistryBacteriaPhosphorusChemistryBiologyPhosphateGeneticsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bacteria have evolved advanced strategies for surviving during nutritional stress, including expression of specialized enzyme systems that allow them to grow on unusual nutrient sources. Inorganic phosphate (Pi) is limiting in most ecosystems, hence organisms have developed a sophisticated, enzymatic machinery known as carbon‐phosphorus (C‐P) lyase, allowing them to extract phosphate from a wide range of phosphonate compounds. These are characterized by a stable covalent bond between carbon and phosphorus making them very hard to break down. Despite the challenges involved in both synthesizing and catabolizing phosphonates, they are widespread in nature. The enzymes required for the bacterial C‐P lyase pathway have been identified and for the most part structurally characterized. Nevertheless, the mechanistic principles governing breakdown of phosphonate compounds remain enigmatic. In this review, an overview of the C‐P lyase pathway is provided and structural aspects of the involved enzyme complexes are discussed with a special emphasis on the role of ATP‐binding cassette (ABC) proteins.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations41
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioEssaysSame topicTrace Elements in HealthFrench-language works237,207