Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prions in eukaryotes have been linked to diseases, evolutionary capacitance, large-scale genetic control and long-term memory formation. In bacteria, constructed prion-forming proteins have been described, such as the prion-forming protein recently described for Clostridium botulinum transcription terminator Rho. Here, I analyzed the evolution of the Rho prion-forming domain across bacteria, and discovered that its conservation is sporadic both in the Clostridium genus and in bacteria generally. Nonetheless, it has an apparent evolutionary reach into eight or more different bacterial phyla. Motivated by these results, I investigated whether this pattern of wide-ranging evolutionary sporadicity is typical of bacterial prion-like domains. A measure of coverage of a domain (C) within its evolutionary range was derived, which is effectively a weighted fraction of the number of species in which the domain is found. I observe that occurrence across multiple phyla is not uncommon for bacterial prion-like protein domain families, but that they tend to sample of a low fraction of species within their evolutionary range, like Rho. The Rho prion-like domain family is one of the top three most widely distributed prion-like protein domain families in terms of number of phyla. There are >60 prion-like protein domain families that have at least the evolutionary coverage of Rho, and are found in multiple phyla. The implications of these findings for evolution and for experimental investigations into prion-forming proteins are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".