MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122978450 · doi:10.1080/07388550490904288

Cloning Vectors Based on Cryptic Plasmids Isolated from Lactic Acid Bacteria:Their Characteristics and Potential Applications in Biotechnology

2004· review· en· W2122978450 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Shareck, Young Lark Choi, Byong H. Lee, Carlos B. Míguez

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Biotechnology · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlasmidStreptococcus thermophilusBiologyCloning (programming)Cloning vectorBacteriaBiotechnologyLactobacillusGeneComputational biologyVector (molecular biology)GeneticsRecombinant DNAComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are Gram positive bacteria, widely distributed in nature, and industrially important as they are used in a variety of industrial food fermentations. The use of genetic engineering techniques is an effective means of enhancing the industrial applicability of LAB. However, when using genetic engineering technology, safety becomes an essential factor for the application of improved LAB to the food industry. Cloning and expression systems should be derived preferably from LAB cryptic plasmids that generally encode genes for which functions can be proposed, but no phenotypes can be observed. However, some plasmid-encoded functions have been discovered in cryptic plasmids originating from Lactobacillus, Streptococcus thermophilus, and Pediococcus spp. and can be used as selective marker systems in vector construction. This article presents information concerning LAB cryptic plasmids, and their structures, functions, and applications. A total of 134 cryptic plasmids collated are discussed.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations92
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in BiotechnologySame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207