Burkholderia latens sp. nov., Burkholderia diffusa sp. nov., Burkholderia arboris sp. nov., Burkholderia seminalis sp. nov. and Burkholderia metallica sp. nov., novel species within the Burkholderia cepacia complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The taxonomic position of five recA gene clusters of Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc) isolates was determined using a polyphasic taxonomic approach. The levels of 16S rRNA and recA gene sequence similarity, multilocus sequence typing (MLST) data and the intermediate DNA-DNA binding values demonstrated that these five clusters represented five novel species within the Bcc. Biochemical identification of these species is difficult, as is the case for most Bcc species. However, identification of these novel species can be accomplished through recA gene sequence analysis, MLST and BOX-PCR profiling and by recA RFLP analysis. For diagnostic laboratories, recA gene sequence analysis offers the best combination of accuracy and simplicity. Based on these results, we propose five novel Bcc species, Burkholderia latens sp. nov. (type strain FIRENZE 3(T) =LMG 24064(T) =CCUG 54555(T)), Burkholderia diffusa sp. nov. (type strain AU1075(T) =LMG 24065(T) =CCUG 54558(T)), Burkholderia arboris sp. nov. (type strain ES0263A(T) =LMG 24066(T) =CCUG 54561(T)), Burkholderia seminalis sp. nov. (type strain AU0475(T) =LMG 24067(T) =CCUG 54564(T)) and Burkholderia metallica sp. nov. (type strain AU0553(T) =LMG 24068(T) =CCUG 54567(T)). In the present study, we also demonstrate that Burkholderia ubonensis should be considered a member of the Bcc.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".