Molecular characterization of DNA encoding 16S23S rRNA intergenic spacer regions and 16S rRNA of pectolytic<i>Erwinia</i>species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sequences of 16S rDNAs and the intergenic spacer (IGS) regions between the 16S and 23S rDNA of bacterial strains from genus Erwinia were determined. Comparison of 16S rDNA sequences from different species and subspecies clearly revealed intraspecies-subspecies homology and interspecies heterogeneity. Phylogenetic analyses of 16S rDNA sequence data revealed that Erwinia spp. formed a discrete monophyletic clade with moderate to high bootstrap values. PCR amplification of the 16S-23S rDNA regions using primers complementary to the 3' end of 16S and 5' end of 23S rRNA genes generated two DNA fragments. The small 16S-23S rDNA IGS regions of Erwinia spp. examined in this study varied considerably in size and nucleotide sequence. Multiple sequence alignment and phylogenetic analysis of small IGS sequence data showed a consistent relationship among the test strains that was roughly in agreement with the 16S rDNA data that reflected the accepted species and subspecies structure of the taxon. Sequence data derived from the large IGS resolved the strains into coherent groups; however, the sequence information would not allow any phylogenetic conclusion, because it failed to reflect the accepted species structure of the test strains.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".