MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558048738 · doi:10.11598/btb.2016.23.1.504

DIVERSITY OF ACTINOMYCETES FROM EKA KARYA BOTANICAL GARDEN, BALI

2016· article· en· W2558048738 on OpenAlexaff
Shanti Ratnakomala, Puspita Lisdiyanti, Nita Rosalinda Prayitno, Evi Triana, Yulin Lestari, Ratih Dwi Hastuti, Yantyati Widyastuti, Misa Otoguro, Katsuhiko Ando, Endang Sukara

Bibliographic record

VenueBIOTROPIA · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
FundersLembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia
Keywords16S ribosomal RNABiologyBotanyGenusRibosomal RNAStreptomycesBiodiversityBacteriaGeneEcologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A total of 229 strains of actinomycetes were isolated and identified by full sequence of 16S rRNA gene analysis. Samples consisted of 18 soil and 20 leaf-litter were collected from Eka Karya Botanical Garden, Bali Island, Indonesia. Two isolation methods, i.e. SDS-Yeast Extract (SY) and Rehydration-Centrifugation (RC) were used in this study. Based on 16S rRNA gene analysis, isolated actinomycetes may be grouped into 28 genera. Based on molecular analysis of 16S rRNA gene similarities showed that isolated actinomycetes of Eka Karya Botanical Garden origin is diverse. Analysis on 144 isolates from soil samples, resulted in 24 genera and more than 87 species. Streptomyces is the most dominant genus where 65 isolates or 45% from isolated actinomycetes belong to this genus. It was followed by Actinoplanes (25 isolates =17%). From leaf-littersamples, the total number of 85 isolates may be grouped into 9 genera and more than 41 species. The most dominated genus is Actinoplanes (42 isolates =49%) followed by Catenuloplanes (16 isolates=19%).Keywords: 16S rRNA gene analysis, actinomycetes, biodiversity, Eka Karya Botanical Garden

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 score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBIOTROPIASame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207