MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799629165 · doi:10.3390/v10050217

The Sequence of Two Bacteriophages with Hypermodified Bases Reveals Novel Phage-Host Interactions

2018· article· en· W2799629165 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew M. Kropinski, Dann Turner, John J. Nash, Hans‐Wolfgang Ackermann, Erika J. Lingohr, R. A. J. Warren, Kenneth C. Ehrlich, Melanie Ehrlich

Bibliographic record

VenueViruses · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicBacteriophages and microbial interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversité LavalPublic Health Agency of CanadaUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyoviridaeGenomeBiologyGeneBacillus subtilisDNAGeneticsGC-contentBase pairgenomic DNADNA sequencingPyrosequencingBacteriophageBacteriaEscherichia coli

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

, respectively. What links them is that in both cases, approximately 50% of the thymine residues are replaced by hypermodified bases. The consequence of this is that the physico-chemical properties of the DNA are radically altered (melting temperature (Tm), buoyant density and susceptibility to restriction endonucleases). Using 454 pyrosequencing technology, we sequenced the genomes of both viruses. Phage ΦW-14 possesses a 157-kb genome (56.3% GC) specifying 236 proteins, while SP-15 is larger at 222 kb (38.6 mol % G + C) and encodes 318 proteins. In both cases, the phages can be considered genomic singletons since they do not possess BLASTn homologs. While no obvious genes were identified as being responsible for the modified base in ΦW-14, SP-15 contains a cluster of genes obviously involved in carbohydrate metabolism.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVirusesSame topicBacteriophages and microbial interactionsFrench-language works237,207