A single phylogenetic analysis of Bacillus thuringiensis strains and bacilli species inferred from 16S rRNA gene restriction fragment length polymorphism is congruent with two independent phylogenetic analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To assess the congruence between two earlier independent phylogenetic studies on Bacillus thuringiensis strains and on Bacillus-related species and the single, all-encompassing, phylogenetic tree presented here inferred from the combination of the two earlier datasets. METHODS AND RESULTS: A dendrogram was constructed using a combination of the data from our previous studies on 16S rRNA gene fingerprinting of 86 B. thuringiensis strains and of 77 species of Bacillus and related taxa. It revealed that all B. thuringiensis strains were clustered together in four distinct groups at a DNA similarity rate of 93%, except two serovars, bolivia and finitimus. Four bacilli species, Paenibacillus alvei, P. azotofixans, B. lentus and B. licheniformis, share a DNA similarity rate of 92% with Bt Group IV. CONCLUSIONS: Most, but not all, B. thuringiensis strains could be grouped together based on the DNA similarity rate. They were also very close to some other bacilli species. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: The combined phylogenetic study presented here, inferred from 16S rRNA gene restriction fragment length polymorphism, is congruent with two earlier independent phylogenetic studies, one on B. thuringiensis and the other on bacilli species.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".