MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparative genome analysis of a<i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i>wine strain

2008· article· en· W2166625352 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anthony R. Borneman, Angus H. Forgan, Isak S. Pretorius, Paul J. Chambers

Bibliographic record

VenueFEMS Yeast Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian GovernmentGovernment of South AustraliaAlberta Water Research Institute
KeywordsBiologySaccharomyces cerevisiaeWineStrain (injury)GeneticsYeastGenomeWhole genome sequencingIndustrial microbiologyGeneBacteriaFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many industrial strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae have been selected primarily for their ability to convert sugars into ethanol efficiently despite exposure to a variety of stresses. To begin investigation of the genetic basis of phenotypic variation in industrial strains of S. cerevisiae, we have sequenced the genome of a wine yeast, AWRI1631, and have compared this sequence with both the laboratory strain S288c and the human pathogenic isolate YJM789. AWRI1631 was found to be substantially different from S288c and YJM789, especially at the level of single-nucleotide polymorphisms, which were present, on average, every 150 bp between all three strains. In addition, there were major differences in the arrangement and number of Ty elements between the strains, as well as several regions of DNA that were specific to AWRI1631 and that were predicted to encode proteins that are unique to this industrial strain.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.198
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations154
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEMS Yeast ResearchSame topicFermentation and Sensory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207