Validation of a partial<i>rpoB</i>gene sequence as a tool for phylogenetic identification of aeromonads isolated from environmental sources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A collection of 50 aeromonads isolated from environmental sources were studied, together with all known Aeromonas nomenspecies, by phenotypic, amplified 16S rDNA restriction analysis (16S rDNA RFLP) and by partial sequence alignment of both 16S rDNA and rpoB genes. Although most of the type strain showed a unique phenotypic pattern, a database constructed on type strain phenotype allowed the identification of only 24% of the isolates. Analysis of 16S rDNA RFLP and the rpoB sequence were almost concordant in identifying environmental isolates at the species level, except for strains belonging to Aeromonas caviae spp., which were not differentiated from Aeromonas aquariorum, nor Aeromonas hydrophila susbsp. dhakensis by 16S rDNA RFLP. In addition, rpoB gene analysis clustered separately a group of isolates found in snails within the A. hydrophila species. In contrast to 16S rDNA RFLP and rpoB, the partial 16S rDNA sequence analysis was weak in resolving species identity. Part of these results, phenotypic and phylogenetic data, showed that Aeromonas molluscorum and Aeromonas sharmana are distant from all other Aeromonas species and that the type species of A. hydrophila subsp. anaerogenes is similar to A. caviae and should be considered synonymous.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".