MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972969770 · doi:10.2741/3332

Bacteriophages of Lactobacillus

2009· review· en· W1972969770 on OpenAlexafffund
Manuela Villion

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in bioscience · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicBacteriophages and microbial interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSiphoviridaeLactobacillus gasseriProphageLactobacillus caseiLactobacillus rhamnosusLactobacillusLactobacillus plantarumBacteriophageBiologyMicrobiologyMyoviridaePhage therapyLysinGeneticsVirologyBacteriaEscherichia coliGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this review, we are listing Lactobacillus phages that have been reported in peer-reviewed articles published since 1960. Putative phages that are defective or have not been shown to be infectious, such as phage-like particles, are not discussed. Our literature searches led to the identification of 231 Lactobacillus phages, 186 of which have been observed by electron microscopy, with 109 belonging to the Siphoviridae family, 76 to the Myoviridae family, and 1 to the Podoviridae family. Model phages infecting Lb delbrueckii, casei, rhamnosus, plantarum, and gasseri are highlighted, as well as prophages of Lactobacillus hosts. To date, nine complete Lactobacillus phage genomes are available for comparisons and evolution studies. Features such as phage receptors and endolysins are also reviewed, as well as phage-derived genetic tools. Lactobacillus phage research has progressed significantly over the past decade but a thorough understanding of their biology is still lacking. Because of the risks they represent and the knowledge gaps that need to be filled, the outlook for research on Lactobacillus phages is bright.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations81
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in bioscienceSame topicBacteriophages and microbial interactionsFrench-language works237,207