The quorum‐sensing systems of <i>Vibrio campbellii</i> <scp>DS40M4</scp> and <scp>BB120</scp> are genetically and functionally distinct
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vibrio campbellii BB120 (previously classified as Vibrio harveyi) is a fundamental model strain for studying quorum sensing in vibrios. A phylogenetic evaluation of sequenced Vibrio strains in Genbank revealed that BB120 is closely related to the environmental isolate V. campbellii DS40M4. We exploited DS40M4's competence for exogenous DNA uptake to rapidly generate greater than 30 isogenic strains with deletions of genes encoding BB120 quorum-sensing system homologues. Our results show that the quorum-sensing circuit of DS40M4 is distinct from BB120 in three ways: (i) DS40M4 does not produce an acyl homoserine lactone autoinducer but encodes an active orphan LuxN receptor, (ii) the quorum regulatory small RNAs (Qrrs) are not solely regulated by autoinducer signalling through the response regulator LuxO and (iii) the DS40M4 quorum-sensing regulon is much smaller than BB120 (~100 genes vs. ~400 genes, respectively). Using comparative genomics to expand our understanding of quorum-sensing circuit diversity, we observe that conservation of LuxM/LuxN proteins differs widely both between and within Vibrio species. These strains are also phenotypically distinct: DS40M4 exhibits stronger interbacterial cell killing, whereas BB120 forms more robust biofilms and is bioluminescent. These results underscore the need to examine wild isolates for a broader view of bacterial diversity in the marine ecosystem.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".