MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Genome comparison of<i>Bifidobacterium longum</i>strains NCC2705 and CRC-002 using suppression subtractive hybridization

2008· article· en· W2101076752 on OpenAlexafffund
Véronique Delcenserie, Marie-Hélà ̈ne Lessard, Denis Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueFEMS Microbiology Letters · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBifidobacterium longumSuppression subtractive hybridizationBifidobacteriumBiologyGeneticsComputational biologyMicrobiologyBacteriaGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because probiotic effects are strain dependent, genomic explanations of these differences will contribute to understanding their mechanisms of action. The genomic sequence of the Bifidobacterium longum probiotic strain NCC2705 was determined, but little is known about the genetic diversity between strains of this species. Suppression subtractive hybridization (SSH) is a powerful method for generating a set of DNA fragments differing between two closely related bacterial strains. The purpose of this study was to identify genetic differences between genomes of B. longum strains NCC2705 and CRC-002 using PCR-based SSH. Strain CRC-002 produces exopolysaccharides whereas NCC2705 is not known for reliable exopolysaccharide production. Thirty-five and 30 different sequences were obtained from the SSH libraries of strains CRC-002 and NCC2705, respectively. Specific CRC-002 genes found were predicted to be involved in the biosynthesis of exopolysaccharides and metabolism of other carbohydrates, and these genes were not present in the genome of strain NCC2705. The identification of an endo-1,4-beta-xylanase gene in the CRC-002 SSH library is an important difference because xylanase genes have previously been proposed as a defining characteristic of the NCC2705 strain. The results demonstrate that the SSH technique was useful to highlight potential genes involved in complex sugar metabolism that differ between the two probiotic strains.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
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

Citations8
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEMS Microbiology LettersSame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207