MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Molecular differentiation of<i>Bifidobacterium</i>species with amplified ribosomal DNA restriction analysis and alignment of short regions of the<i>ldh</i>gene

2000· article· en· W2022318552 on OpenAlexaff
Denis Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueFEMS Microbiology Letters · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBifidobacterium animalisRestriction enzymeBiologyBifidobacterium longumAmplified Ribosomal DNA Restriction AnalysisBamHIMolecular biologyGeneGeneticsRibosomal RNATaqIBifidobacteriumPrimer (cosmetics)16S ribosomal RNAPolymerase chain reactionRibosomal DNALactobacillusRestriction fragment length polymorphismBacteriaPhylogenetic treeChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The differentiation of Bifidobacterium species was performed with specific primers using the PCR technique, the amplified ribosomal DNA restriction analysis (ARDRA) technique based on reports on the sequence of the 16S rRNA gene and speciation based on a short region of the ldh gene. Four specific primer sets were developed for each of the Bifidobacterium species, B. animalis, B. infantis and B. longum. The use of the ARDRA method made it possible to discriminate between B. infantis, B. longum and B. animalis with the combination of BamHI, TaqI and Sau3AI restriction enzymes. The ldh gene sequences of 309-312 bp were determined for 19 Bifidobacterium strains. Alignment of these short regions of the ldh gene confirmed that it is possible to distinguish between B. longum and B. infantis but not between B. lactis and B. animalis.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 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

Citations92
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEMS Microbiology LettersSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207