Phylogeny, identification and nomenclature of the genus<i>Aspergillus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aspergillus comprises a diverse group of species based on morphological, physiological and phylogenetic characters, which significantly impact biotechnology, food production, indoor environments and human health. Aspergillus was traditionally associated with nine teleomorph genera, but phylogenetic data suggest that together with genera such as Polypaecilum, Phialosimplex, Dichotomomyces and Cristaspora, Aspergillus forms a monophyletic clade closely related to Penicillium. Changes in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants resulted in the move to one name per species, meaning that a decision had to be made whether to keep Aspergillus as one big genus or to split it into several smaller genera. The International Commission of Penicillium and Aspergillus decided to keep Aspergillus instead of using smaller genera. In this paper, we present the arguments for this decision. We introduce new combinations for accepted species presently lacking an Aspergillus name and provide an updated accepted species list for the genus, now containing 339 species. To add to the scientific value of the list, we include information about living ex-type culture collection numbers and GenBank accession numbers for available representative ITS, calmodulin, β-tubulin and RPB2 sequences. In addition, we recommend a standard working technique for Aspergillus and propose calmodulin as a secondary identification marker.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
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".