MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<i>Pseudoloma neurophilia</i> n. g., n. sp., a New Microsporidium from the Central Nervous System of the Zebrafish (<i>Danio rerio</i>)

2001· article· en· W2105539198 on OpenAlexaff
J. L. Matthews, Amanda M. V. Brown, Karen D. Larison, Janell K. Bishop-Stewart, Paul A. Rogers, Michael L. Kent

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Eukaryotic Microbiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicParasitic Infections and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of Oregon
KeywordsBiologyMicrosporidiaPolar filamentDanioZoologySporeZebrafishAnatomyRibosomal DNAPhylogeneticsMicrobiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An unusual xenoma-forming microsporidium was discovered in the central nervous system of moribund zebrafish from a laboratory colony in Eugene, Oregon. Infected fish were often emaciated and lethargic, and histological examination commonly revealed severe myelitis and myositis associated with the infection. Based on its structure, development, and small subunit ribosomal DNA sequence it is unique among fish microsporidia. Spores are uninucleate, ovoid to pyriform, with a prominent posterior vacuole. Spores average 5.4 x 2.7 microm with 13-16 coils of the polar filament. The microsporidium produces xenomas within the spinal cord and hindbrain of fish, and xenomas contained sporophorous vesicles with up to 16 spores. Sporoblasts and presporoblast stages (probably sporonts) are found occasionally in small aggregates dispersed randomly throughout xenomas. It clustered in the "Ichthyosporidium group" along with other fish microsporidian genera based on rDNA sequence analysis. The rDNA sequence of the zebrafish microsporidium was most similar to that of Ichthyosporidium, but showed only 12.1% similarity and therefore this microsporidium can be considered a distinct genus and species, which we have named Pseudoloma neurophilia n. g., n. sp.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score0.730

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 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

Citations94
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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