Genomic diversity and relationship of<i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i>and<i>Bacillus cereus</i>by multi-REP-PCR fingerprinting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The genomic diversity and relationship among 56 Bacillus thuringiensis and Bacillus cereus type strains were investigated by multi-REP-PCR fingerprinting consisting of three PCR reactions targeting the enterobacterial ERIC1 and ERIC2 and the streptococcal BOXA1R consensus sequences. A total of 113 polymorphic bands were generated in the REP-PCR profiles that allowed tracing of a single dendrogram with three major groups. Bacillus cereus strains clustered together in the A and B groups. Most of the B. thuringiensis strains clustered in group C, which included groups of serovars with a within-group similarity higher than 40% as follows: darmstadiensis, israelensis, and morrisoni; aizawai, kenyae, pakistani, and thompsoni; canadensis, entomocidus, galleriae, kurstaki, and tolworthi; alesti, dendrolimus, and kurstaki; and finitimus, sotto, and thuringiensis. Multi-REP-PCR fingerprinting clustered B. thuringiensis serovars in agreement with previously developed multilocus sequence typing schemes, indicating that it represents a rapid shortcut for addressing the genetic relationship of unknown strains with the major known serovars.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".