MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123147846 · doi:10.1099/mic.0.001022

Identification of Crp as a novel regulator of the Std fimbrial expression in Salmonella

2021· article· en· W3123147846 on OpenAlexafffund
Karine Dufresne, France Daigle

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobiology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFimbriaBiologySalmonella entericaRegulatorVirulenceSalmonella typhiSalmonellaMutantIn silicoMicrobiologyVirulence factorGeneGeneticsEscherichia coliBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi genome contains 14 putative fimbrial systems. The Std fimbriae belong to the chaperone-usher family and its regulation has not been investigated in S . Typhi. Several regulators of Std were previously identified in the closely related serovar Typhimurium. We hypothesize that regulators of S . Typhimurium may be shared with S . Typhi, but that several other regulators remain to be discovered. Here, we describe the role of more than 50 different candidate regulators on std expression. Three types of regulators were investigated: known regulators in S . Typhimurium, in silico predicted regulators and virulence/metabolic regulators. Expression of std was determined in the regulator mutants and compared with the wild-type strain. Overall, 21 regulator mutations affect std promoter expression. The role of Crp, a newly identified factor for std expression, was further investigated. Crp acted as an activator of std expression on a distal region of the std promoter region. Together, our results demonstrate the major influence of Crp as a novel transcriptional factor on std promoter expression and later production of Std fimbriae in Salmonella .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrobiologySame topicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiologyFrench-language works237,207