MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2985956355 · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13127-z

Multisite phosphorylation drives phenotypic variation in (p)ppGpp synthetase-dependent antibiotic tolerance

2019· article· en· W2985956355 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Elizabeth A. Libby, Shlomi Reuveni, Jonathan Dworkin

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesNational Institutes of HealthAzrieli FoundationNational Institute of General Medical SciencesBurroughs Wellcome Fund
KeywordsSasaMultidrug toleranceBiologyHistidine kinasePhenotypePhosphorylationPopulationGeneTranscription factorGeneticsCell biologyBacteriaBiofilmMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Isogenic populations of cells exhibit phenotypic variability that has specific physiological consequences. Individual bacteria within a population can differ in antibiotic tolerance, but whether this variability can be regulated or is generally an unavoidable consequence of stochastic fluctuations is unclear. Here we report that a gene encoding a bacterial (p)ppGpp synthetase in Bacillus subtilis, sasA, exhibits high levels of extrinsic noise in expression. We find that sasA is regulated by multisite phosphorylation of the transcription factor WalR, mediated by a Ser/Thr kinase-phosphatase pair PrkC/PrpC, and a Histidine kinase WalK of a two-component system. This regulatory intersection is crucial for controlling the appearance of outliers; rare cells with unusually high levels of sasA expression, having increased antibiotic tolerance. We create a predictive model demonstrating that the probability of a given cell surviving antibiotic treatment increases with sasA expression. Therefore, multisite phosphorylation can be used to strongly regulate variability in antibiotic tolerance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations39
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicBacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyFrench-language works237,207