MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A phylogenetic analysis of Bacillus thuringiensis serovars by RFLP-based ribotyping

2001· article· en· W2008493536 on OpenAlexaff
K.-B. Joung, J. C. Côté

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Microbiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacillus and Francisella bacterial research
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaGDG EnvironnementUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBacillus thuringiensisRibotypingBiologyPhylogenetic treeDendrogramEcoRIGeneticsSerotypeRibosomal RNA16S ribosomal RNAPhylogeneticsRestriction fragment length polymorphismMicrobiologyGeneGenotypeRestriction enzymeBacteriaGenetic diversity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To determine the 23S and 5S rRNA gene fingerprints in order to reveal phylogenetic relationships among Bacillus thuringiensis strains. METHODS AND RESULTS: Eighty-six B. thuringiensis strains which include 80 serovar type strains, five intraserovar strains and a non-serotypeable strain, wuhanensis, were tested. Total DNA was digested with EcoRI and HindIII. The 23S and 5S rRNA gene restriction fragment length polymorphisms showed 82 distinctive ribopatterns. The dendrogram generated by numerical analysis showed 10 phylogenetic groups and six ungrouped serovars at the 95.5% DNA relatedness rate. A second dendrogram was constructed using a combination of the data from this study and from a previous study on 16S rRNA gene fingerprinting. It revealed eight distinct phylogenetic groups and three ungrouped serovars at the 94% DNA relatedness rate. CONCLUSION: This method permitted the classification and positioning of a wide variety of B. thuringiensis strains on a phylogenetic tree. Bacillus thuringiensis strains appear to be relatively homogeneous and to share a high degree of DNA relatedness. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: This study contributes a further step to the definition of valid taxonomic sublevels for the B. thuringiensis species.

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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations15
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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