Advancing Antimicrobial Resistance Research Through Quantitative Modeling and Synthetic Biology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an emerging global health crisis that is undermining advances in modern medicine and, if unmitigated, threatens to kill 10 million people per year worldwide by 2050. Research over the last decade has demonstrated that the differences between genetically identical cells in the same environment can lead to drug resistance. Fluctuations in gene expression, modulated by gene regulatory networks, can lead to non-genetic heterogeneity that results in the fractional killing of microbial populations causing drug therapies to fail; this non-genetic drug resistance can enhance the probability of acquiring genetic drug resistance mutations. Mathematical models of gene networks can elucidate general principles underlying drug resistance, predict the evolution of resistance, and guide drug resistance experiments in the laboratory. Cells genetically engineered to carry synthetic gene networks regulating drug resistance genes allow for controlled, quantitative experiments on the role of non-genetic heterogeneity in the development of drug resistance. In this perspective article, we emphasize the contributions that mathematical, computational, and synthetic gene network models play in advancing our understanding of AMR to discover effective therapies against drug-resistant infections.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".