Compaction and control—the role of chromosome-organizing proteins in<i>Streptomyces</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chromosomes are dynamic entities, whose organization and structure depend on the concerted activity of DNA-binding proteins and DNA-processing enzymes. In bacteria, chromosome replication, segregation, compaction and transcription are all occurring simultaneously, and to ensure that these processes are appropriately coordinated, all bacteria employ a mix of well-conserved and species-specific proteins. Unusually, Streptomyces bacteria have large, linear chromosomes and life cycle stages that include multigenomic filamentous hyphae and unigenomic spores. Moreover, their prolific secondary metabolism yields a wealth of bioactive natural products. These different life cycle stages are associated with profound changes in nucleoid structure and chromosome compaction, and require distinct repertoires of architectural-and regulatory-proteins. To date, chromosome organization is best understood during Streptomyces sporulation, when chromosome segregation and condensation are most evident, and these processes are coordinated with synchronous rounds of cell division. Advances are, however, now being made in understanding how chromosome organization is achieved in multigenomic hyphal compartments, in defining the functional and regulatory interplay between different architectural elements, and in appreciating the transcriptional control exerted by these 'structural' proteins.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".