Characterization of clinical and environmental isolates of Vibrio cidicii sp. nov., a close relative of Vibrio navarrensis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four Vibrio spp. isolates from the historical culture collection at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, obtained from human blood specimens (n=3) and river water (n=1), show characteristics distinct from those of isolates of the most closely related species, Vibrio navarrensis and Vibrio vulnificus, based on phenotypic and genotypic tests. They are specifically adapted to survival in both freshwater and seawater, being able to grow in rich media without added salts as well as salinities above that of seawater. Phenotypically, these isolates resemble V. navarrensis, their closest known relative with a validly published name, but the group of isolates is distinguished from V. navarrensis by the ability to utilize l-rhamnose. Average nucleotide identity and percent DNA-DNA hybridization values obtained from the pairwise comparisons of whole-genome sequences of these isolates to V. navarrensis range from 95.4-95.8 % and 61.9-64.3 %, respectively, suggesting that the group represents a different species. Phylogenetic analysis of the core genome, including four protein-coding housekeeping genes (pyrH, recA, rpoA and rpoB), places these four isolates into their own monophyletic clade, distinct from V. navarrensis and V. vulnificus. Based on these differences, we propose these isolates represent a novel species of the genus Vibrio, for which the name Vibrio cidicii sp. nov. is proposed; strain LMG 29267T (=CIP 111013T=2756-81T), isolated from river water, is the type 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".