MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2305811183 · doi:10.1002/mbo3.348

<scp>CRISPR</scp>1 analysis of naturalized surface water and fecal <i>Escherichia coli</i> suggests common origin

2016· article· en· W2305811183 on OpenAlexafffund
Lisa Tymensen

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobiologyOpen · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsAlberta Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
FundersAlberta Agriculture and Forestry
KeywordsCRISPRBiologyAlleleGeneticsEscherichia coliGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPRs) are part of an acquired bacterial immune system that functions as a barrier to exogenous genetic elements. Since naturalized Escherichia coli are likely to encounter different genetic elements in aquatic environments compared to enteric strains, we hypothesized that such differences would be reflected within the hypervariable CRISPR alleles of these two populations. Comparison of CRISPR1 alleles from naturalized and fecal phylogroup B1 E. coli strains revealed that the alleles could be categorized into four major distinct groups (designated G6-G9), and all four allele groups were found among naturalized strains and fecal strains. The distribution of CRIPSR G6 and G8 alleles was similar among strains of both ecotypes, while naturalized strains tended to have CRISPR G7 alleles rather than G9 alleles. Since CRISPR G7 alleles were not specific to naturalized strains, they, however, would not be useful as a marker for identifying naturalized strains. Notably, CRISPR alleles from naturalized and fecal strains also had similar spacer repertoires. This indicates a shared history of encounter with mobile genetic elements and suggests that the two populations were derived from common ancestors.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrobiologyOpenSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207