Phylogenetic analysis of<i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i>serovars based on 16S rRNA gene restriction fragment length polymorphisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To determine the 16S rRNA gene fingerprints of Bacillus thuringiensis strains to reveal phylogenetic relationships among them. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using 16S rRNA gene restriction fragment length polymorphisms generated by HindIII and EcoRI, 86 Bacillus thuringiensis strains were classified. This includes 80 B. thuringiensis serovars and five more strains, kurstaki HD-1, subtoxicus, dendrolimus, tenebrionis and sandiego, to assess not only interserovar DNA relatedness but also intraserovar DNA relatedness, and the non-motile strain, hence non-serotypeable, B. thuringiensis var. wuhanensis. All 86 B. thuringiensis strains tested showed distinct ribotypes. The dendrogram resulting from the numerical analysis of the distance matrix shows four distinct phylogenetic groups and two ungrouped serovars, finitimus and bolivia, at the 92.5% DNA relatedness rate. CONCLUSION: 16S rRNA gene fingerprinting cannot only be used for the classification of B. thuringiensis strains amenable or not to serotyping, but can also reveal phylogenetic relationships between strains. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: In future screening programmes, 16S rRNA gene restriction pattern analysis could be determined for novel B. thuringiensis strains, allowing them not only to be grouped but also to be positioned on the phylogenetic tree.
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 | 0.000 | 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".