MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017226908 · doi:10.1080/07060660009501166

High diversity in<i>Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens</i>pv.<i>flaccumfaciens</i>characterized by serology and rep-PCR genomic fingerprinting

2000· article· en· W2017226908 on OpenAlexaffvenue
John G. McDonald, E. Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Pathology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Pathogenic Bacteria Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
FundersUniversity of Sussex
KeywordsPathovarEpitopeSerologyBiologyPolyclonal antibodiesPhylogenetic treeMonoclonal antibodyMicrobiologyPolymerase chain reactionVirologyAntigenGeneticsAntibodyGeneBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The diversity found in culture collection strains of Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens pv. flaccumfaciens was characterized by serology and repetitive-sequence-based polymerase chain reaction (rep-PCR). Using strain NCPPB 559 as the reference antigen, immunofluorescence tests with polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies confirmed that no epitope appeared to be common to all strains of this pathovar. Screening of hybridoma cell lines againsl strains of this pathovar, as well as against other members of this genus and species, identified two distinct epitopes. Phylogenetic analysis of the rep-PCR genomic fingerprints of Curtobacter, Clavibacter, and Rathayibacter species, grouped all the C. flaccumfaciens strains and pathovars together, but the C. flaccumfaciens pv. flaccumfaciens strains did not form a single cluster. Rather, they dispersed into two clusters, along with strains of other pathovars of this species. Members of one cluster reacted with one of the monoclonal antibodies, while members of the other did not.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.170
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations21
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant PathologySame topicPlant Pathogenic Bacteria StudiesFrench-language works237,207