No endospore formation confirmed in members of the phylum Proteobacteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Endospore formation is used by members of the phylum Firmicutes to withstand extreme environmental conditions. Several recent studies have documented endospore formation in species outside of Firmicutes, particularly in Rhodobacter johrii and Serratia marcescens , members of the phylum Proteobacteria. Here, we aimed to investigate endospore formation in these two species by using advanced imaging and analytical approaches. Examination of the phase-bright structures observed in R. johrii and S. marcescens using cryo-electron tomography failed to identify endospores or stages of endospore formation. We determined that the phase-bright objects in R. johrii cells were triacylglycerol storage granules and those in S. marcescens were aggregates of cellular debris. In addition, R. johrii and S. marcescens containing phase-bright objects do not possess phenotypic and genetic features of endospores, including enhanced resistance to heat, presence of dipicolinic acid, or the presence of many of the genes associated with endospore formation. Our results support the hypothesis that endospore formation is restricted to the phylum Firmicutes. Importance Endospore formation is a mechanism that allows bacteria to generate resilient dormant spores under harsh environmental conditions. Although this process has been traditionally restricted to the largely Gram-positive bacteria of the phylum Firmicutes, recent studies have also described endospores in some Proteobacteria. High complexity of endosporulation, reflected in extensive morphological transformations governed by hundreds of conserved genes, hinders its facile acquisition via horizontal gene transfer. Therefore, ability of distantly related bacteria to produce endospores would imply an ancient nature of this mechanism and potentially a pivotal role in species diversification and outer membrane biogenesis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".