Teichoic acids anchor distinct cell wall lamellae in an apically growing bacterium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The bacterial cell wall is a dynamic, multicomponent structure that provides structural support for cell shape and physical protection from the environment. In monoderm species, the thick cell wall is made up predominantly of peptidoglycan, teichoic acids and a variety of capsular glycans. Filamentous monoderm Actinobacteria, such as Streptomyces coelicolor , incorporate new cell wall material at the apex of their hyphal cells during growth. In this study we use cryo-electron tomography to reveal the structural architecture of the cell wall of this bacterium. Our data shows a density difference between the apex and subapical regions of chemically isolated sacculi. Removal of the teichoic acids with hydrofluoric acid reveals a rough and patchy cell wall and distinct lamellae in a number of sacculi. Absence of the extracellular glycans poly-β-1,6- 𝒩 -acetylglucosamine and a cellulose-like polymer, produced by the MatAB and CslA proteins respectively, results in a thinner sacculus and absence of lamellae and patches. Extracellular glycans might thus form or lead to the formation of the outer cell wall lamella. Based on these findings we propose a revisited model for the complex cell wall architecture of an apically growing bacterium, in which the network of peptidoglycan together with extracellular polymers is structurally supported by teichoic acids.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".