Molecular analysis of mutated<i>Lactobacillus acidophilus</i>promoter-like sequence P15
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The promoter-like sequence P15 that was previously cloned from the chromosome of Lactobacillus acidophilus ATCC 4356 is active in Lactobacillus reuteri, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Escherichia coli, but not in Lactococcus lactis. N-methyl-N-nitroso-N-guanidine (MNNG) mutagenesis of P15 was used to select for a promoter active in L. lactis MG1363. Molecular analysis of the mutated promoter (designated P16) revealed a 90 bp deletion and a T[Formula: see text]A transversion. This deletion, in combination with the addition to the transversion, created a promoter with putative -35 and -10 hexamers identical to the consensus promoter sequence found in E. coli and Bacillus subtilis vegetative promoters. The activity of P16 was measured by its ability to promote chloramphenicol resistance in different bacteria when inserted in the promoter-probe plasmid pBV5030 (designated pLA16). The MIC of chloramphenicol in L. lactis, L. reuteri, L. plantarum, E. coli, and L. acidophilus harbouring pLA16 were 30, 170, 180, >500, and 3 µg/mL, respectively. This represents an increase in promoter activity compared to P15 in L. reuteri of 3-fold, in L. plantarum of 9-fold, and in E. coli of at least 2.5-fold, but a decrease in L. acidophilus of 7-fold.Key words: Lactobacillus acidophilus, promoter-like sequence, mutagenesis.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".