MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2905739984 · doi:10.1101/506055

From the inside out: An epibiotic Bdellovibrio predator with an expanded genomic complement

2018· preprint· en· W2905739984 on OpenAlexafffund
Christoph Deeg, Tan T. Le, Matthias M. Zimmer, Curtis A. Suttle

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBritish Columbia Knowledge Development FundDeutscher Akademischer AustauschdienstNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsBdellovibrioPredationBiologyPredatorPeriplasmic spaceZoologyEcologyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bdellovibrio and like organisms are abundant environmental predators of prokaryotes that show a diversity of predation strategies, ranging from intra-periplasmic to epibiotic predation. The novel epibiotic predator Bdellovibrio qaytius was isolated from a eutrophic freshwater pond in British Columbia, where it was a continual part of the microbial community. Bdellovibrio qaytius was found to preferentially prey on the beta-proteobacterium Paraburkholderia fungorum. Despite its epibiotic replication strategy, B. qaytius encodes a complex genomic complement more similar to periplasmic predators as well as several biosynthesis pathways not previously found in epibiotic predators. Bdellovibrio qaytius is representative of a widely distributed basal cluster within the genus Bdellovibrio, suggesting that epibiotic predation might be a common predation type in nature and ancestral to the genus.

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)0.000
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.212 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies→French-language works237,207→