MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2065224234 · doi:10.1139/w06-036

A simple and rapid method for the differentiation and identification of thermophilic bacteria

2006· article· en· W2065224234 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bin Liu, Hebin Li, Suijie Wu, Xiaobo Zhang, Lianhui Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsThermophileSimple (philosophy)Identification (biology)BiologyBacteriaMicrobiologyComputational biologyBiological systemGeneticsBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In total, 170 strains of thermophilic bacteria were isolated from deep-sea hydrothermal fields in the Pacific Ocean and a hot spring in Xiamen of China. To facilitate the identification of thermophilic strains, sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) of whole-cell proteins of these strains was first performed. The results showed that there exist four different protein patterns, indicating that the 170 strains might belong to four species or genera. The RAPD (random amplified polymorphic DNA) profiles of nine representative strains were consistent with those of SDS-PAGE. To further identify the species of the nine strains, their 16S rDNA sequences were analyzed. The results showed that the nine strains fell into four species of three genera, which was the same as revealed by SDS-PAGE. Therefore, SDS-PAGE of whole-cell proteins could be used as a rapid and simple method for the discrimination of thermophilic bacteria as the first step of 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Microbiology→Same topicMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology→French-language works237,207→