MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964391260 · doi:10.2323/jgam.52.147

Phylogenetic analysis of γ-proteobacteria inferred from nucleotide sequence comparisons of the house-keeping genes adk, aroE and gdh: Comparisons with phylogeny inferred from 16S rRNA gene sequences

2006· article· en· W1964391260 on OpenAlexaff
Hoon-Yong Lee, Jean‐Charles Côté

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of General and Applied Microbiology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhylogenetic treeGeneBiologyGeneticsPhylogenetics16S ribosomal RNANucleic acid sequenceSequence (biology)ProteobacteriaComputational biologyEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nucleotide sequence comparisons of three house-keeping genes, adenylate kinase (adk), shikimate dehydrogenase (aroE), and glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (gdh), were used to infer the phylogeny of 33 gamma-proteobacteria. Phylogenetic trees inferred from each gene, and from the concatenated sequences of all three genes, are, in general, similar to a 16S rRNA gene-inferred tree. Similar grouping of bacteria are revealed at the family, genus, species and strain levels in all five trees. The house-keeping genes, however, show a higher rate of nucleotide sequence substitutions. Consequently, they can possibly probe deeper branches of a phylogenetic tree than the 16S rRNA gene. However, because their nucleotide sequences are not as highly conserved among gamma-proteobacteria, family- or genus-specific primers would need to be designed for the amplification of any of these three house-keeping genes. Since these genes are used in multilocus sequence typing, it is expected that the number of sequences publicly available for many taxa will increase over time proving them very useful either at complementing 16S rRNA-inferred phylogenies or for specific, targeted, phylogenetic analysis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.699

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of General and Applied MicrobiologySame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207