Evaluation of ribosomal RNA gene restriction patterns for the classification of Bacillus species and related genera
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To identify Bacillus species and related genera by fingerprinting based on ribosomal RNA gene restriction patterns; to compare ribosomal RNA gene restriction patterns-based phylogenetic trees with trees based on 16S rRNA gene sequences; to evaluate the usefulness of ribosomal RNA gene restriction patterns as a taxonomic tool for the classification of Bacillus species and related genera. METHODS AND RESULTS: Seventy-eight bacterial species which include 42 Bacillus species, 31 species from five newly created Bacillus-related genera, and five species from five phenotypically related genera were tested. A total of 77 distinct 16S rRNA gene hybridization banding patterns were obtained. The dendrogram resulting from UPGMA analysis showed three distinct main genetic clusters at the 75% banding pattern similarity. A total of 77 distinct 23S and 5S rRNA genes hybridization banding patterns were obtained, and the dendrogram showed four distinct genetic clusters at the 75% banding pattern similarity. A third dendrogram was constructed using a combination of the data from the 16S rRNA gene fingerprinting and the 23S and 5S rRNA genes fingerprinting. It revealed three distinct main phylogenetic clusters at the 75% banding pattern similarity. CONCLUSIONS: The Bacillus species along with the species from related genera were identified successfully and differentiated by ribosomal RNA gene restriction patterns, and most were distributed with no apparent order in various clusters on each of the three dendrograms. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: Our data indicate that ribosomal RNA gene restriction patterns can be used to reconstruct the phylogeny of the Bacillus species and derived-genera that approximates, but does not duplicate, phylogenies based on 16S rRNA gene sequences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".