MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995697687 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aay2591

A bifunctional ATPase drives tad pilus extension and retraction

2019· article· en· W2995697687 on OpenAlexaff
Courtney K. Ellison, Jingbo Kan, Jennifer L. Chlebek, Katherine R. Hummels, Gaël Panis, Patrick H. Viollier, Nicolas Biais, Ankur B. Dalia, Yves V. Brun

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiochemical and Structural Characterization
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPilusExtension (predicate logic)ATPaseBifunctionalCell biologyChemistryBiologyBiophysicsComputer scienceBiochemistryEscherichia coliEnzymeProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A widespread class of prokaryotic motors powered by secretion motor adenosine triphosphatases (ATPases) drives the dynamic extension and retraction of extracellular fibers, such as type IV pili (T4P). Among these, the tight adherence (tad) pili are critical for surface sensing and biofilm formation. As for most other motors belonging to this class, how tad pili retract despite lacking a dedicated retraction motor ATPase has remained a mystery. Here, we find that a bifunctional pilus motor ATPase, CpaF, drives both activities through adenosine 5'-triphosphate (ATP) hydrolysis. We show that mutations within CpaF result in a correlated reduction in the rates of extension and retraction that directly scales with decreased ATP hydrolysis and retraction force. Thus, a single motor ATPase drives the bidirectional processes of pilus fiber extension and retraction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations69
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicBiochemical and Structural CharacterizationFrench-language works237,207