Bacillus thuringiensis Collection and Isolates Identification from Damingshan and Dawangling Natural Reserves in Guangxi Province
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 264 soil samples were collected from Damingshan and Dawangling Natural Reserves in Guangxi Province of southern China. From those 264 soil samples, 597 Bacillus isolates were harvested; and among them, 16 isolates were further identified to be Bacillus thuringiesis using oil lens optical microscope and scanning electronic microscope. The isolation rate of these 264 soil samples is 6.06%. Among the 16 B. thuringiensis isolates, four isolates were observed to produce diamond parasporal crystal proteins and others produce different shapes of crystal proteins including circular and irregular shapes. The selected 16 isolates were analysed using PCR-RFLP and SDS-PAGE to identify their protein and genotype. The results showed that four B. thuringiensis isolates were identified as cry1Ac-genotype and encoding about 130 kD parasporal crystal protein; three isolates as cry40-genotype and one B. thuringiensis isolate as cry30-genotype, in which both encode about 75 kD parasporal crystal protein. The remaining eight isolates produce different sizes of proteins and genotype cannot be determines, thus further analysis is. Toxicity bioassay was carried out and results indicated that the four B. thuringiensis isolates with cry1 genotype exhibit high specific toxicity to Plutella xylostella larvae, but not the other 12 isolates.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".