MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782307386 · doi:10.1007/s12275-018-7107-6

Baekduia soli gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel bacterium isolated from the soil of Baekdu Mountain and proposal of a novel family name, Baekduiaceae fam. nov.

2018· article· en· W2782307386 on OpenAlexaff
Dong-Shan An, Muḥammad Zubair Ṣiddiqi, Kyoung‐Ho Kim, Hongshan Yu, Wan‐Taek Im

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Microbiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyBacteriaMicrobiologyTaxonomy (biology)BotanyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A taxonomic study was conducted on BR7-21T, a bacterial strain isolated from the soil of a ginseng field in Baekdu Mountain. Comparative studies of the 16S rRNA gene sequence showed that the isolate was most closely related to Conexibacter woesei DSM 14684T, Solirubrobacter pauli ATCC BAA-492T, Patulibacter minatonensis JCM 12834T, with 93.8%, 92.4%, and 91.5% sequence similarity, respectively; each genus represented a family in the order Solirubrobacterales. Strain BR7-21T was Gram-reaction positive, non-spore forming, aerobic, non-motile, and short rod-shaped. It grew well on half-strength R2A medium. The G + C content of the genomic DNA was 73.9%. It contained meso-diaminopimelic acid in the cell wall and the major menaquinones were MK-7(H4) and MK-8(H4). The major fatty acids were summarized as (C16:1ω7c/iso-C15:0 2-OH), iso-C16:0, and C17:0 cyclo. On the basis of polyphasic evidence, it was proposed that strain BR7-21T should be placed in a new genus and species, for which the name Baekduia soli gen. nov., sp. nov. was proposed with the type strain BR7-21T (= KCTC 22257T = LMG 24797T). The family Baekduiaceae fam. nov. is proposed to encompass the genus Baekduia gen. nov.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of MicrobiologySame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207