The luminescence induction point of Vibrio harveyi is an integration of multiple regulatory controls : LuxR, MetR, and CRP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Luminescence is a secondary metabolic process that can be detected and assayed in a non-disruptive, in vivo, and real-time manner. As such the Vibrio harveyi luminescence (lux) system constitutes a model system that can be used to delineate the relatively complex transcriptional control mechanisms that are inherent to secondary metabolic processes. Molecular insights into the control of luminescence induction in V. harveyi is limited to the two-component quorum-sensing system and LuxR. While the quorum-sensing system is thought to facilitate luminescence induction through a mechanism of derepression, LuxR has been shown to be an essential activator of the process by virtue of the absence of luminescence in a luxR null mutant. Additionally, it has been suggested that LuxR activates its own expression. Data presented here demonstrates that LuxR is involved in autorepression. Moreover, it is argued that LuxR may not be a typical activator in that it may mediate activation of lux gene expression through a mechanism of repression. An implication of this proposal is that a second unidentified activator is required for luminescence induction to occur. The search of candidates to fill this proposed activation role focused on two highly conserved and extensively studied activators, MetR and CRP. Both are involved in nutrient dependent pathways as MetR is an activator of methionine biosynthesis genes and CRP is implicated in the regulation of metabolic pathways in response to the presence of preferred carbohydrates. In the specific case of the V. harveyi lux system, MetR is shown to act as a repressor, while CRP is shown to be a critical activator of luminescence induction. The evolutionary and ecological implications of these findings are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".