MOLECULAR AND MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF TEN POLAR AND NEAR‐POLAR STRAINS WITHIN THE OSCILLATORIALES (CYANOBACTERIA)<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An approximately 1400‐bp region of the 16S rRNA gene was sequenced for 10 polar or near‐polar strains putatively placed in the Oscillatorialean genera Oscillatoria, Phormidium, and Lyngbya obtained from the University of Toronto Culture Collection to assess phylogenetic relationships. The strains were also examined for thylakoid structure and cell division type with TEM as well as traditional morphology with LM. Phylogenetic trees constructed using parsimony, distance, and maximum likelihood methods were similar in topology. If the original epithets applied to the sequenced strains (both polar and those from GenBank) were used, it was clear that taxa were not monophyletic. However, using the revised taxonomic system of Anagnostidis and Komárek, we were able to reassign these strains to their current correct taxa (species, genus, and family). When these assignments were made, it was determined that the molecular sequence data analyses were congruent with morphology and ultrastructure. Nine of the polar strains were found to be new species, and eight were described as such: Arthronema gygaxiana Casamatta et Johansen sp. nov., Pseudanabaena tremula Johansen et Casamatta sp. nov., Leptolyngbya angustata Casamatta et Johansen sp. nov., Phormidium lumbricale Johansen et Casamatta sp. nov., Microcoleus glaciei Johansen et Casamatta sp. nov., Microcoleus rushforthii Johansen et Casamatta sp. nov., Microcoleus antarcticus Casamatta et Johansen sp. nov., Microcoleus acremannii Casamatta et Johansen sp. nov. Some genera (Leptolyngbya and Microcoleus) were clearly not monophyletic and require future revision.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".