MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049806712 · doi:10.1139/w08-013

Properties of an alginate-degrading Flavobacterium sp. strain LXA isolated from rotting algae from coastal China

2008· article· en· W2049806712 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qingda An, Gongliang Zhang, Hai‐Tao Wu, Zhencheng Zhang, Guoshuang Zheng, Yingli Zhang, Xianzhen Li, Yoshiyuki Murata

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEnzyme Production and Characterization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlavobacterium16S ribosomal RNABiologyAlgaeStrain (injury)Phylogenetic treeBacteriaFlavobacteriaceaeCatalaseMicrobiologyOxidase testRibosomal RNABotanyGeneBiochemistryPseudomonasEnzymeGeneticsBacteroidetes

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel bacterium exhibiting alginolytic activity was isolated from rotten algae. The alginate-degrading activity was detected in the culture supernatant by measuring the decrease in alginate viscosity or the increase in reducing sugars. Basic characterization showed that it was gram negative, rod shaped, yellow pigmented, and positive for oxidase and catalase, with a DNA G+C content of 35.6 mol%. Phylogenetic analysis based on 16S rRNA gene sequences indicated that this strain is related to members of the genus Flavobacterium. Sequence similarity values with their nearest phylogenetic neighbours ranged from 95.9% to 96.7%. Genotypic results, together with phenotypic characteristics, differentiated this species from related Flavobacterium organisms with validly published names, which suggests that the organism should be a new species of the genus Flavobacterium tentatively named as Flavobacterium sp. strain LXA.

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)0.000
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicEnzyme Production and CharacterizationFrench-language works237,207