MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reassessment of Sequence-Based Targets for Identification of<i>Bacillus</i>Species

2004· article· en· W1997915530 on OpenAlexaff
Kym Blackwood, Christine Y. Turenne, Dag Harmsen, Amin Kabani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Microbiology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacillus and Francisella bacterial research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaTransCanada (Canada)Health Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsrpoBBiology16S ribosomal RNACereusBacillus anthracisRibosomal RNAGenetics23S ribosomal RNASequence analysisNucleic acid sequenceGeneBacillus cereusMicrobiologyBacteriaRibosomeRNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Bacillus genus is a large heterogeneous group in need of an efficient method for species differentiation. To determine the current validity of a sequence-based method for identification and provide contemporary data, PCR and sequencing of a 500-bp product encompassing the V1 to V3 regions of the 16S rRNA gene were undertaken using 65 of the 83 type strains of this genus. This region proved discriminatory between most species (70.0 to 100% similarity), the exceptions being clinically relevant B. cereus and B. anthracis as well as nonpathogenic B. psychrotolerans and B. psychrodurans. Consequently, 27 type and clinical strains from the B. cereus group were used to test alternate targets (rpoB, vrrA, and the 16S-23S spacer region) for identification. The rpoB gene proved the best alternate target, with a conserved 4-nucleotide difference between B. cereus and B. anthracis. The high 16S rRNA gene sequence similarities between some strains demonstrated the need for a polyphasic approach to the systematics of this genus. This approach is one focus of the Ribosomal Differentiation of Medical Microorganisms mandate. Accordingly, the 16S rRNA gene sequences generated in this study have been submitted for inclusion into its publicly accessible, quality-controlled database at http://www.ridom_rdna.de/.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations94
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MicrobiologySame topicBacillus and Francisella bacterial researchFrench-language works237,207