Plasmid Localization and Partition in <i>Enterobacteriaceae</i>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plasmids are ubiquitous in the microbial world and have been identified in almost all species of bacteria that have been examined. Their localization inside the bacterial cell has been examined for about two decades; typically, they are not randomly distributed, and their positioning depends on copy number and their mode of segregation. Low-copy-number plasmids promote their own stable inheritance in their bacterial hosts by encoding active partition systems, which ensure that copies are positioned in both halves of a dividing cell. High-copy plasmids rely on passive diffusion of some copies, but many remain clustered together in the nucleoid-free regions of the cell. Here we review plasmid localization and partition (Par) systems, with particular emphasis on plasmids from Enterobacteriaceae and on recent results describing the in vivo localization properties and molecular mechanisms of each system. Partition systems also cause plasmid incompatibility such that distinct plasmids (with different replicons) with the same Par system cannot be stably maintained in the same cells. We discuss how partition-mediated incompatibility is a consequence of the partition mechanism.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it