Corrigendum to âThe<i>csbX</i>gene of<i>Azotobacter vinelandii</i>encodes an MFS efflux pump required for catecholate siderophore exportâ [FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 228 (2004) 211â216]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the above-mentioned article the following changes should be taken into account: Abstract, page 211, sentence 2 should read: Other proteins that were most similar to CsbX were found in Aeromonas hydrophila and in the catecholate siderophore biosynthesis operon of Stigmatella aurantiaca. and Results and discussion section, page 213, bottom of column 1 should read: (E value 4 × 10−48; 38% identity; GenBank number AAF63418.1) found in Aeromonas hydrophila [25]. Explanation When the manuscript was first written, the Abstract originally read ‘The other protein that was most similar to CsbX was found in the catecholate siderophore biosynthesis operon of Stigmatella aurantiaca’. A putative multi-drug efflux pump of Aeromonas hydrophila described by Zhang et al. (2000) in reference 25 was also very similar and we speculated that all three pumps may be involved in catecholate siderophore export (see Results and Discussion, p. 214, column 1). Unfortunately, the name ‘Aeromonas hydrophila’ was simply inserted into the phrase above so that the location of the putative efflux pump of A. hydrophila was incorrectly reported to be in the catecholate biosynthesis operon of A. hydrophila and this error was carried forward into the Results and discussion section. This led to the incorrect wording in the published manuscript (Abstract, page 211, sentence 2; and Results and discussion, page 213, bottom of column 1), while our speculation was only that the A. hydrophila pump might be involved in catecholate siderophore export. This does not change the results of our study and does not change our speculation about the similar roles of these pumps in Azotobacter vinelandii, A. hydrophila and S. aurantiaca.
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 | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.138 | 0.113 |
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".