Patterns of abundance, chromosomal localization, and domain organization among c-di-GMP-metabolizing genes revealed by comparative genomics of five alphaproteobacterial orders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bis-(3'-5')-cyclic dimeric guanosine monophosphate (c-di-GMP) is a bacterial second messenger that affects diverse processes in different bacteria, including the cell cycle, motility, and biofilm formation. Its cellular levels are controlled by the opposing activities of two types of enzymes, with synthesis by diguanylate cyclases containing a GGDEF domain and degradation by phosphodiesterases containing either an HD-GYP or an EAL domain. These enzymes are ubiquitous in bacteria with up to 50 encoded in some genomes, the specific functions of which are mostly unknown. RESULTS: We used comparative analyses to identify genomic patterns among genes encoding proteins with GGDEF, EAL, and HD-GYP domains in five orders of the class Alphaproteobacteria. GGDEF-containing sequences and GGDEF-EAL hybrids were the most abundant and had the highest diversity of co-occurring auxiliary domains while EAL and HD-GYP containing sequences were less abundant and less diverse with respect to auxiliary domains. There were striking patterns in the chromosomal localizations of the genes found in two of the orders. The Rhodobacterales' EAL-encoding genes and Rhizobiales' GGDEF-EAL-encoding genes showed opposing patterns of distribution compared to the GGDEF-encoding genes. In the Rhodobacterales, the GGDEF-encoding genes showed a tri-modal distribution with peaks mid-way between the origin (ori) and terminus (ter) of replication and at ter while the EAL-encoding genes peaked near ori. The patterns were more complex in the Rhizobiales, but the GGDEF-encoding genes were biased for localization near ter. CONCLUSIONS: The observed patterns in the chromosomal localizations of these genes suggest a coupling of synthesis and hydrolysis of c-di-GMP with the cell cycle. Moreover, the higher proportions and diversities of auxiliary domains associated with GGDEF domains and GGDEF-EAL hybrids compared to EAL or HD-GYP domains could indicate that more stimuli affect synthesis compared to hydrolysis of c-di-GMP.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".