Genetic diversity ofBacillus thuringiensis serovars revealed by RFLP using random DNA probes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
EcoRI and HindIII restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) profiles using 2 random DNA probes, named 104 and 106, were generated for 85 B. thuringiensis strains. These include 80 serovars, 4 intra-serovar strains: kurstaki HD-1, dendrolimus, tenebrionis and sandiego, and a non-serotypeable strain B. thuringiensis var. wuhanensis. A total of 47 EcoRI and 65 HindIII restriction patterns were generated when hybridization results from both probes were combined. Seventy-seven B. thuringiensis strains showed distinctive hybridization profiles. The dendrogram resulting from the numerical analysis of the distance matrix revealed fourteen distinct phylogenetic groups at the 96% banding patterns similarity. The intra-serovar strains showed higher similarity with their respective type serovars. However, different serovars from a common H-serotype did not always cluster in the same phylogenetic group. Alternatively, several mosquitocidal serovars clustered in a single phylogenetic group. The correlation between serotyping and banding pattern similarity is discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".