Lipopolysaccharide biosynthesis genes discriminate between <i>Rubus‐</i> and Spiraeoideae‐infective genotypes of <i>Erwinia amylovora</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparative genomic analysis revealed differences in the lipopolysaccharide (LPS) biosynthesis gene cluster between the Rubus-infecting strain ATCC BAA-2158 and the Spiraeoideae-infecting strain CFBP 1430 of Erwinia amylovora. These differences corroborate rpoB-based phylogenetic clustering of E. amylovora into four different groups and enable the discrimination of Spiraeoideae- and Rubus-infecting strains. The structure of the differences between the two groups supports the hypothesis that adaptation to Rubus spp. took place after species separation of E. amylovora and E. pyrifoliae that contrasts with a recently proposed scenario, based on CRISPR data, in which the shift to domesticated apple would have caused an evolutionary bottleneck in the Spiraeoideae-infecting strains of E. amylovora which would be a much earlier event. In the core region of the LPS biosynthetic gene cluster, Spiraeoideae-infecting strains encode three glycosyltransferases and an LPS ligase (Spiraeoideae-type waaL), whereas Rubus-infecting strains encode two glycosyltransferases and a different LPS ligase (Rubus-type waaL). These coding domains share little to no homology at the amino acid level between Rubus- and Spiraeoideae-infecting strains, and this genotypic difference was confirmed by polymerase chain reaction analysis of the associated DNA region in 31 Rubus- and Spiraeoideae-infecting strains. The LPS biosynthesis gene cluster may thus be used as a molecular marker to distinguish between Rubus- and Spiraeoideae-infecting strains of E. amylovora using primers designed in this study.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".