MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

EXTENSIVE VARIATION IN NATURAL COMPETENCE IN<i>HAEMOPHILUS INFLUENZAE</i>

2009· article· en· W2017433972 on OpenAlexafffund
Heather Maughan, Rosemary J. Redfield

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institutes of HealthKillam Trusts
KeywordsBiologyDNAGeneticsNatural selectionGeneHaemophilus influenzaeGenetic variationCompetence (human resources)BacteriaSelection (genetic algorithm)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability of some bacteria to take up and recombine DNA from the environment is an important evolutionary problem because its function is controversial; although populations may benefit in the long-term from the introduction of new alleles, cells also reap immediate benefits from the contribution of DNA to metabolism. To clarify how selection has acted, we have characterized competence in natural isolates of H. influenzae by measuring DNA uptake and transformation. Most of the 34 strains we tested became competent, but the amounts of DNA they took up and recombined varied more than 1000-fold. Differences in recombination were not due to sequence divergence and were only partly explained by differences in the amounts of DNA taken up. One strain was highly competent during log phase growth, unlike the reference strain Rd, but several strains did not develop competence under any of the tested conditions. Analysis of competence genes identified genetic defects in two poorly transformable strains. These results show that strains can differ considerably in the amount of DNA they take up and recombine, indicating that the benefit associated with competence is likely to vary in space and/or time.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations75
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207