A comprehensive history of motility and Archaellation in Archaea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Each of the three Domains of life, Eukarya, Bacteria and Archaea, have swimming structures that were all originally called flagella, despite the fact that none were evolutionarily related to either of the other two. Surprisingly, this was true even in the two prokaryotic Domains of Bacteria and Archaea. Beginning in the 1980s, evidence gradually accumulated that convincingly demonstrated that the motility organelle in Archaea was unrelated to that found in Bacteria, but surprisingly shared significant similarities to type IV pili. This information culminated in the proposal, in 2012, that the ‘archaeal flagellum’ be assigned a new name, the archaellum. In this review, we provide a historical overview on archaella and motility research in Archaea, beginning with the first simple observations of motile extreme halophilic archaea a century ago up to state-of-the-art cryo-tomography of the archaellum motor complex and filament observed today. In addition to structural and biochemical data which revealed the archaellum to be a type IV pilus-like structure repurposed as a rotating nanomachine (Beeby et al. 2020), we also review the initial discoveries and subsequent advances using a wide variety of approaches to reveal: complex regulatory events that lead to the assembly of the archaellum filaments (archaellation); the roles of the various archaellum proteins; key post-translational modifications of the archaellum structural subunits; evolutionary relationships; functions of archaella other than motility and the biotechnological potential of this fascinating structure. The progress made in understanding the structure and assembly of the archaellum is highlighted by comparing early models to what is known today.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".