Labrys wisconsinensis sp. nov., a budding bacterium isolated from Lake Michigan water, and emended description of the genus Labrys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two facultatively anaerobic, budding bacterial strains, designated W1215-PCA4(T) and SRNK-1, were isolated from water from Lake Michigan, USA. The two strains showed identical ERIC-PCR-generated genomic fingerprints and shared 99.9 % 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity. Strain W1215-PCA4(T) showed highest 16S rRNA gene sequence similarities to Labrys monachus VKM B-1479(T) (95.8 %), Labrys methylaminiphilus DSM 16812(T) (95.1 %), Labrys okinawensis MAFF 210191(T) (96.0 %), Labrys miyagiensis G24103(T) (95.4 %), Labrys neptuniae BCRC 17578(T) (95.7 %) and Labrys portucalensis DSM 17916(T) (95.8 %). Data suggested that the two strains were members of a single novel species of the genus Labrys. The major cellular fatty acids of the two isolates were C(18 : 1)omega7c, C(19 : 0) cyclo omega8c and C(16 : 0). Their polar lipid profiles were highly similar to that of Labrys monachus DSM 5896(T). The primary quinone was ubiquinone Q-10, with minor amounts of Q-9 and Q-11. sym-Homospermidine was the predominant polyamine, with putrescine present in moderate amounts. The two strains were identical in terms of their biochemical and physiological traits, but were distinguishable from other species of the genus Labrys. Hence, the description of a novel species in this genus appears to be justified. The name Labrys wisconsinensis sp. nov. is proposed; the type strain is W1215-PCA4(T) (=DSM 19619(T)=NRRL B-51088(T)).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".