MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073205530 · doi:10.1111/jeu.12066

Microsporidian Diversity in Soil, Sand, and Compost of the <scp>P</scp>acific <scp>N</scp>orthwest

2013· article· en· W2073205530 on OpenAlexafffund
A. M. Ardila‐Garcia, Nandini Raghuram, Panela Sihota, Naomi M. Fast

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Eukaryotic Microbiology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicParasitic Infections and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMicrosporidiaBiologyPhylogenetic treeCompostPhylogenetic diversityDiversity (politics)ZoologyCladeEcologyPhylogeneticsSporeMicrobiologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microsporidia are intracellular parasites considered to be ubiquitous in the environment. Yet the true extent of their diversity in soils, sand, and compost remains unclear. We examined microsporidian diversity found in the common urban environments of soil, sand, and compost. We retrieved 22 novel microsporidian sequences and only four from described species. Their distribution was generally restricted to a single site and sample type. Surprisingly, one novel microsporidian showed a wide distribution, and high prevalence, as it was detected in five different compost samples and in soil samples collected over 200 km apart. These results suggest that the majority of Microsporidia appear to have a narrow distribution. Our phylogenetic analysis indicated that the Microsporidia detected in this study include representatives from four of the five major microsporidian groups. Furthermore, the addition of our new sequences calls into question the cohesiveness of microsporidian clade II. These results highlight the importance of increasing our knowledge of microsporidian diversity to better understand the phylogenetic relationships and evolutionary history of this important group of emerging parasites.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.211
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations27
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Eukaryotic MicrobiologySame topicParasitic Infections and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207