Comparative genomic analysis of Lactobacillus plantarum GB-LP4 and identification of evolutionarily divergent genes in high-osmolarity environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lactobacillus plantarum is one of the widely-used probiotics and there have been a large number of advanced researches on the effectiveness of this species. However, the difference between previously reported plantarum strains, and the source of genomic variation among the strains were not clearly specified. In order to understand further on the molecular basis of L. plantarum on Korean traditional fermentation, we isolated the L. plantarum GB-LP4 from Korean fermented vegetable and conducted whole genome assembly. With comparative genomics approach, we identified the candidate genes that are expected to have undergone evolutionary acceleration. These genes have been reported to associate with the maintaining homeostasis, which are generally known to overcome instability in external environment including low pH or high osmotic pressure. Here, our results provide an evolutionary relationship between L. plantarum species and elucidate the candidate genes that play a pivotal role in evolutionary acceleration of GB-LP4 in high osmolarity environment. This study may provide guidance for further studies on L. plantarum.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".