Differential Selection for Translation Efficiency Shapes Translation Machineries in Bacterial Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different bacterial species have dramatically different generation times, from 20–30 min in Escherichia coli to about two weeks in Mycobacterium leprae. The translation machinery in a cell needs to synthesize all proteins for a new cell in each generation. The three subprocesses of translation, i.e., initiation, elongation, and termination, are expected to be under stronger selection pressure to optimize in short-generation bacteria (SGB) such as Vibrio natriegens than in the long-generation Mycobacterium leprae. The initiation efficiency depends on the start codon decoded by the initiation tRNA, the optimal Shine–Dalgarno (SD) decoded by the anti-SD (aSD) sequence on small subunit rRNA, and the secondary structure that may embed the initiation signals and prevent them from being decoded. The elongation efficiency depends on the tRNA pool and codon usage. The termination efficiency in bacteria depends mainly on the nature of the stop codon and the nucleotide immediately downstream of the stop codon. By contrasting SGB with long-generation bacteria (LGB), we predict (1) SGB to have more ribosome RNA operons to produce ribosomes, and more tRNA genes for carrying amino acids to ribosomes, (2) SGB to have a higher percentage of genes using AUG as the start codon and UAA as the stop codon than LGB, (3) SGB to exhibit better codon and anticodon adaptation than LGB, and (4) SGB to have a weaker secondary structure near the translation initiation signals than LGB. These differences between SGB and LGB should be more pronounced in highly expressed genes than the rest of the genes. We present empirical evidence in support of these predictions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".