MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2603717859

Mining New Bt Insecticidal Protein Genes Resource Using Illumina Sequencing Technology

2014· article· en· W2603717859 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wenfei Zhang, Hongping Wu, Xu Zhixia, Jin Yinghong, Wu Zhongqi, Jiangzhao Qian, Nannan Huang, Wenjie Jin, Jia Luyu, Xinfeng Li, Ning Wang, Cong Zhao, Xiaojing Liu, Liu Jie, Mingyue Liu, Yifeng Liu, Ruiping Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueBt Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyBacillus thuringiensisGeneIllumina dye sequencingDNA sequencingBiotechnologyPEST analysisGeneticsBotanyBacteria
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bacillus thuringiensis ( Bt ), as the most widely used biologically produced pest control agent, is already auseful alternative or supplement to synthetic chemical pesticide and is also a key source of genes for transgenic expression to provide pest resistance in plants. On basis of Bt strains isolated from soil samples from the Diaoluoshan and Wuzhishan Natural Reserve, we carried out a large-scale screening the insecticidal genes from the special Bt strains through Illumina sequencing. In this study, 25 of the insecticidal genes, including 5 of the novel vegetative insecticidal protein genes ( vip ) and 3 of the new cyt genes had been identified from the different Bt strains. All the result indicated that the second generation sequencing technology of illumine is efficient in mining the insecticidal gene from Bt isolates, which would further enrich the new different insecticide genes application in commercial agriculture, forest management, and mosquito control.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBt ResearchSame topicInsect Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207