Assembly and disassembly of Aspergillus fumigatus conidial rodlets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rodlet structure present on the Aspergillus fumigatus conidial surface hides conidia from immune recognition. In spite of the essential biological role of the rodlets, the molecular basis for their self-assembly and disaggregation is not known. Analysis of the soluble forms of conidia-extracted and recombinant RodA by NMR spectroscopy has indicated the importance of disulfide bonds and identified two dynamic regions as likely candidates for conformational change and intermolecular interactions during conversion of RodA into the amyloid rodlet structure. Point mutations introduced into the RODA sequence confirmed that (1) mutation of a single cysteine was sufficient to block rodlet formation on the conidial surface and (2) both presumed amyloidogenic regions were needed for proper rodlet assembly. Mutations in the two putative amyloidogenic regions retarded and disturbed, but did not completely inhibit, the formation of the rodlets in vitro and on the conidial surface. Even in a disturbed form, the presence of rodlets on the surface of the conidia was sufficient to immunosilence the conidium. However, in contrast to the parental conidia, long exposure of mutant conidia lacking disulfide bridges within RodA or expressing RodA carrying the double (I115S/I146G) mutation activated dendritic cells with the subsequent secretion of proinflammatory cytokines. The immune reactivity of the RodA mutant conidia was not due to a modification in the RodA structure, but to the exposure of different pathogen-associated molecular patterns on the surface as a result of the modification of the rodlet surface layer. The full degradation of the rodlet layer, which occurs during early germination, is due to a complex array of cell wall bound proteases. As reported earlier, this loss of the rodlet layer lead to a strong anti-fumigatus host immune response in mouse lungs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".