MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413341071 · doi:10.1101/2025.08.12.669831

Contrasts and similarities in the transcriptomic response to antimicrobial coinage metals in <i>Escherichia coli</i>

2025· preprint· en· W4413341071 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel A. Salazar-Alemán, A. J. McGibbon, Raymond J. Turner

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersDefence and Security AcceleratorNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary
KeywordsEscherichia coliAntimicrobialTranscriptomeMicrobiologyBiologyGeneticsGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT With the rise of resistance to last-resort antibiotics, metal-based antimicrobials have re-emerged as an alternative to prevent and manage infections. The group 11 metals (copper, silver, gold), historically known for their usage in coins, have demonstrated promising bactericidal activity. Despite their efficiency, we do not have a complete understanding of how bacteria are eradicated by metal ions and how they respond to metal-induced stress. Additionally, most studies in the field focus on the physiological response to acute toxicity, often overlooking longer exposure models. We used RNA-seq profiling to understand the Escherichia coli physiological response to sublethal inhibitory antimicrobial coinage metal stress after 10 hours of incubation. Gene expression patterns of the adaptive and intrinsic response elicited by each metal were identified, including increased essential metal uptake (Ag, Cu, Au), cysteine biosynthesis (Cu, Au), change of the metal ion oxidation state (Cu, Au), efflux of metal stressor (Cu), protein translation, and ribosome biogenesis (Au), and cell envelope stress response (Ag). We highlight the remarkable differences and similarities in the transcriptomic response profile of E. coli to these antimicrobial metal elements. IMPORTANCE Dogma existed in the past, stating that all antimicrobial metals kill bacteria the same way. Thus, the assumption was that bacteria respond the same way to metal toxicity. Nowadays, we understand better why some metal elements are more toxic than others, but questions remain in relation to how bacteria adapt to survive and thrive when challenged by different metal-based antimicrobials. Our study advances the field by characterizing the type of bacterial response needed to acclimate and grow in the presence of silver, copper, and gold—metallic elements known for their antimicrobial activity. Taking advantage of well-characterized Escherichia coli , we propose a model that summarizes our findings after comparing the shared and unique responses to each of these metals. This information enhances our understanding of bacterial tolerance to metal-based antimicrobials, which can lead to improved drug development strategies as society continues to search for alternatives against antibiotic-resistant pathogens.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicBacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyFrench-language works237,207