MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408628201 · doi:10.1038/s44319-025-00378-9

Borrelia burgdorferi lacking all cp32 prophage plasmids retains full infectivity in mice

2025· article· en· W4408628201 on OpenAlexafffund
C. Hillman, Hannah Theriault, Satyender Hansra, Patricia A. Rosa, Jenny Wachter

Bibliographic record

VenueEMBO Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicVector-borne infectious diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institutes of HealthInnovation Saskatchewan
KeywordsProphageBorrelia burgdorferiInfectivityPlasmidBiologyVirologyBorreliaMicrobiologyGeneticsBacteriophageVirusGeneEscherichia coliAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The causative agent of Lyme disease, Borrelia burgdorferi, contains a unique, segmented genome comprising multiple linear and circular plasmids. To date, the genomes of over 63 sequenced Lyme disease Borrelia carry one or more 32 kbp circular plasmids (cp32) or cp32-like elements. The cp32 plasmids are endogenous prophages and encode, among other elements, a family of surface exposed lipoproteins termed OspEF-related proteins. These lipoproteins are synthesized during mammalian infection and are considered important components of the spirochete's adaptive response to the vertebrate host. Here, we detail the construction and infectivity of the first described B. burgdorferi strain lacking all cp32 plasmids. Despite their universal presence, our findings indicate that B. burgdorferi does not require any cp32 plasmids to complete the experimental mouse-tick-mouse infectious cycle and a total lack of cp32s does not impair spirochete infectivity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEMBO ReportsSame topicVector-borne infectious diseasesFrench-language works237,207