Developing a qualitative chemotaxis-sensitive assay for bacteriophage-host interactions on E. coli BW2511
Bibliographic record
Abstract

 
 
 
 To better understand the interactions between bacteriophages and host bacteria, one factor to observe is chemotaxis. Chemotaxis describes the biased directional movement of bacteria either towards or away from a substance. This phenomenon is created by the inhibition or potentiation of tumbling events, which randomize the direction of the host every few seconds. The presence of chemoattractants and chemorepellents can modify the number of tumbling events that occur. In order to elucidate the role of bacteriophages in bacterial chemotaxis, this project aimed to optimize an assay to qualitatively observe chemotaxis within E. coli BW2511 (WT) in comparison to a mutant strain with cheA deletion. Three main assay methods were tested: Tris HCl plate assays, Tris HCl microcapillary assays, and TTC Eppendorf assays. Of all the methods tested, only TTC Eppendorf assays with TTC indicator consistently showed chemotaxis. This study continued to use the Eppendorf assay and determined if various bacteriophages could attract E. coli BW2511 to chemotactically move up a layer of 0.4% PBS-based agar and against gravitational pull.
 
 
 
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".