Survey of compound microsatellites in multiple <i>Lactobacillus</i> genomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distinct simple sequence repeats with 2 or more individual microsatellites joined together or lying adjacent to each other are identified as compound microsatellites. Investigation of such composite microsatellites in the genomes of genus Lactobacillus was the aim of this study. In silico inspection of microsatellite clustering in genomes of 14 Lactobacillus species revealed a wealth of compound microsatellites. All of the mined compound microsatellites were imperfect, were composed of variant motifs, and increased in all genomes, with maximum distance (dMAX) increments of 10 to 50. The majority of these repeats were present in the coding regions. A correlation of microsatellite to compound microsatellite density was detected. The difference established in compound microsatellite division among eukaryotes, Escherichia coli, and lactobacilli is suggestive of diverse genomic features and elementary distinction between creation and fixation methods of compound microsatellites among these organisms.
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) | 0.001 | 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".