Isolates of Thermoanaerobacter thermohydrosulfuricus from decaying wood compost display genetic and phenotypic microdiversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, 12 strains of Thermoanaerobacter were isolated from a single decaying wood compost sample and subjected to genetic and phenotypic profiling. The 16S rRNA encoding gene sequences suggested that the isolates were most similar to strains of either Thermoanaerobacter pseudethanolicus or Thermoanaerobacter thermohydrosulfuricus. Examination of the lesser conserved chaperonin-60 (cpn60) universal target showed that some isolates shared the highest sequence identity with T. thermohydrosulfuricus; however, others to Thermoanaerobacter wiegelii and Thermoanaerobacter sp. Rt8.G4 (formerly Thermoanaerobacter brockii Rt8.G4). BOX-PCR fingerprinting profiles identified differences in the banding patterns not only between the isolates and the reference strains, but also among the isolates themselves. To evaluate the extent these genetic differences were manifested phenotypically, the utilization patterns of 30 carbon substrates were examined and the niche overlap indices (NOI) calculated. Despite showing a high NOI (> 0.9), significant differences existed in the substrate utilization capabilities of the isolates suggesting that either a high degree of niche specialization or mechanisms allowing for non-competitive co-existence, were present within this ecological context. Growth studies showed that the isolates were physiologically distinct in both growth rate and the fermentation product ratios. Our data indicate that phenotypic diversity exists within genetically microdiverse Thermoanaerobacter isolates from a common environment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".