Corynebacterium godavarianum Jani et al. 2018 and Corynebacterium hadale Wei et al. 2018 are both later heterotypic synonyms of Corynebacterium gottingense Atasayar et al. 2017, proposal of an emended description of Corynebacterium gottingense Atasayar et al. 2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seven strains of an unidentifiable Corynebacterium species recovered from blood cultures, urine or cerebrospinal fluid over 26 years, closest to but differentiated from Corynebacterium imitans by 16S rRNA gene and partial rpoB gene sequencing, were studied. In November 2017, Atasayar et al. described a blood culture isolate as Corynebacterium gottingense sp. nov., which had >99 % similarity by 16S rRNA gene sequencing to the Canadian strains. In January 2018, Jani et al. described Corynebacterium godavarianum sp. nov., recovered from the Godavari River, India, which also had >99 % similarity by 16S/ rpoB sequencing to the Canadian strains and C. gottingense. In May 2018, Wei et al. described Corynebacterium hadale recovered from hadopelagic water; this too had >99 % similarity by 16S rRNA gene sequencing to C. gottingense , C. godavarianum and the Canadian strains. C. gottingense DSM 103494 T and C. godavarianum LMG 29598 T were acquired and whole genome sequencing was performed (not previously done). Results were compared with genomes from C. hadale (GenBank accession NQMQ01) and the Canadian isolates. We found that these ten genomes formed a single taxon when compared using digital DNA–DNAhybridization, average nucleotide identity using blast n and average amino acid identity criteria but exhibited some subtle biochemical and chemotaxonomic differences. Heuristically, we propose that C. godavarianum and C. hadale are later heterotypic synonyms of, and the Canadian isolates are identifiable as, C. gottingense . We provide an emended description of Corynebacterium gottingense Atasayar et al . 2017; genomes ranged from 2.48 to 2.69 Mb ( C. gottingense DSM 103494 T , 2.62 Mb) with G+C content of 65.1–65.6 mol% (WGS), recovered from clinical and environmental sites.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".