MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2520590781 · doi:10.7150/jgen.16156

Whole Genome Sequence Analysis of an Alachlor and Endosulfan Degrading <i>Micrococcus </i>sp. strain 2385 Isolated from Ochlockonee River, Florida

2016· article· en· W2520590781 on OpenAlexaff
Ashish K. Pathak, Ashvini Chauhan, Ayman Y. I. Ewida, Paul Stothard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Genomics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicrobial bioremediation and biosurfactants
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUnited States Agency for International DevelopmentUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsStrain (injury)Whole genome sequencingGenomeGenome sizeBiologyGeneChemistryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We recently isolated Micrococcus sp. strain 2385 from Ochlockonee River, Florida and demonstrated potent biodegradative activity against two commonly used pesticides- alachlor [(2-chloro-2`,6`-diethylphenyl-N (methoxymethyl)acetanilide)] and endosulfan [(6,7,8,9,10,10-hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-6,9methano-2,3,4-benzo(e)di-oxathiepin-3-oxide], respectively. To further identify the repertoire of metabolic functions possessed by strain 2385, a draft genome sequence was obtained, assembled, annotated and analyzed. The genome sequence of Micrococcus sp. strain 2385 consisted of 1,460,461,440 bases which assembled into 175 contigs with an N50 contig length of 50,109 bases and a coverage of 600x. The genome size of this strain was estimated at 2,431,226 base pairs with a G+C content of 72.8 and a total number of 2,268 putative genes. RAST annotated a total of 340 subsystems in the genome of strain 2385 along with the presence of 2,177 coding sequences. A genome wide survey indicated that that strain 2385 harbors a plethora of genes to degrade other pollutants including caprolactam, PAHs (such as naphthalene), styrene, toluene and several chloroaromatic compounds.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of GenomicsSame topicMicrobial bioremediation and biosurfactantsFrench-language works237,207