<i>phoR</i>sequences as a phylogenetic marker to differentiate the species in the<i>Bacillus subtilis</i>group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bacillus subtilis and its closely related species are indistinguishable from one another by morphological characteristics and 16S rDNA sequences. In this study, the partial phoR sequence was tested to determine the phylogenetic relationship of species in the B. subtilis group. Degenerate primers were developed according to the relatively conserved nucleotide sequences of phoR and the linked gene phoP in the B. subtilis group. The primers amplified a 1100 bp phoR fragment from strains representative of 6 species in the B. subtilis group. Based on the sequenced fragments, 26 type strains comprising these 6 species were clearly distinguished. At the intraspecies level, the phoR sequence similarities were 90%-100%, but at the interspecies level, the phoR sequence similarities were 32.8%-75%. Compared with the gyrB sequence, the phoR sequences showed a larger divergence especially at the interspecies levels. Therefore, the phoR sequence may be an efficient alternative marker for phylogenetic and taxonomic analysis of species in the B. subtilis group. Twenty-three Bacillus undomesticated isolates were tested for identification and phylogenetic analysis based on the phoR and gyrB sequences. The 23 isolates could be clearly delineated into 4 distinct groups, 10 as B. subtilis, 3 as B. mojavensis, 2 as B. atrophaeus, and 8 as B. amyloliquefaciens.
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".