Defining the core essential genome of <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genomics offered the promise of transforming antibiotic discovery by revealing many new essential genes as good targets, but the results fell short of the promise. While numerous factors contributed to the disappointing yield, one factor was that essential genes for a bacterial species were often defined based on a single or limited number of strains grown under a single or limited number of in vitro laboratory conditions. In fact, the essentiality of a gene can depend on both the genetic background and growth condition. We thus developed a strategy for more rigorously defining the core essential genome of a bacterial species by studying many pathogen strains and growth conditions. We assessed how many strains must be examined to converge on a set of core essential genes for a species. We used transposon insertion sequencing (Tn-Seq) to define essential genes in nine strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa on five different media and developed a statistical model, FiTnEss , to classify genes as essential versus nonessential across all strain–medium combinations. We defined a set of 321 core essential genes, representing 6.6% of the genome. We determined that analysis of four strains was typically sufficient in P. aeruginosa to converge on a set of core essential genes likely to be essential across the species across a wide range of conditions relevant to in vivo infection, and thus to represent attractive targets for novel drug discovery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".