Rapid phylogenetic identification of members of the <i>Pseudomonas syringae</i> species complex using the <i>rpoD</i> locus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phylogenies based on four loci confirmed the relatedness of all nine validly published species type strains within the Pseudomonas syringae species complex. To further establish the phylogenetic structure within the complex, all 67 pathovar type strains (with defined host ranges) were sequenced using a 578‐nucleotide rpoD locus. Since this locus encompassed that used in a previous seven‐locus study, it was possible to relate these strains to the existing phylogroup, genomospecies and binomial classifications. All species type strains were distinguished by relatively long branch lengths with all four loci, except for P. savastanoi , P. ficuserectae , P. meliae , P. amygdali and P. tremae , which were attributed to phylogroup 3. The grouping of P. tremae with these genomospecies‐2 species was surprising since this species was previously designated as the sole representative of genomospecies 5. The oat pathogen P. syringae pv. coronafaciens was also distinguished by relatively long branch lengths with all four loci. The rpoD phylogeny grouped all the pathovar type strains into major clades that corresponded to previously defined phylogroups, except for two genomospecies‐7 strains and P. caricapapayae , which were identified as a new phylogroup (6). There was good correlation between phylogroup and genomospecies classifications, except that two genomospecies‐8 strains ( P. avellanae and P. syringae pv. theae ) were found as a distinct clade within phylogroup 1 along with P. syringae pvs morsprunorum and actinidiae . The rpoD locus will provide a common reference framework to improve monitoring and surveillance of these important 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".