Rhizobial 16S rRNA and <i>dnaK</i> Genes: Mosaicism and the Uncertain Phylogenetic Placement of <i>Rhizobium galegae</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phylogenetic relatedness among 12 agriculturally important species in the order Rhizobiales was estimated by comparative 16S rRNA and dnaK sequence analyses. Two groups of related species were identified by neighbor-joining and maximum-parsimony analysis. One group consisted of Mesorhizobium loti and Mesorhizobium ciceri, and the other group consisted of Agrobacterium rhizogenes, Rhizobium tropici, Rhizobium etli, and Rhizobium leguminosarum. Although bootstrap support for the placement of the remaining six species varied, A. tumefaciens, Agrobacterium rubi, and Agrobacterium vitis were consistently associated in the same subcluster. The three other species included Rhizobium galegae, Sinorhizobium meliloti, and Brucella ovis. Among these, the placement of R. galegae was the least consistent, in that it was placed flanking the A. rhizogenes-Rhizobium cluster in the dnaK nucleotide sequence trees, while it was placed with the other three Agrobacterium species in the 16S rRNA and the DnaK amino acid trees. In an effort to explain the inconsistent placement of R. galegae, we examined polymorphic site distribution patterns among the various species. Localized runs of nucleotide sequence similarity were evident between R. galegae and certain other species, suggesting that the R. galegae genes are chimeric. These results provide a tenable explanation for the weak statistical support often associated with the phylogenetic placement of R. galegae, and they also illustrate a potential pitfall in the use of partial sequences for species identification.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".