Ecological and genomic analyses of candidate phylum <scp>WPS</scp> ‐2 bacteria in an unvegetated soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Members of the bacterial candidate phylum WPS‐2 (or Eremiobacterota) are abundant in several dry, bare soil environments. In a bare soil deposited by an extinct iron–sulfur spring, we found that WPS‐2 comprised up to 24% of the bacterial community and up to 10 8 cells per g of soil based on 16S rRNA gene sequencing and quantification. A single genus‐level cluster ( Ca. Rubrimentiphilum) predominated in bare soils but was less abundant in adjacent forest. Nearly complete genomes of Ca. Rubrimentiphilum were recovered as single amplified genomes (SAGs) and metagenome‐assembled genomes (MAGs). Surprisingly, given the abundance of WPS‐2 in bare soils, the genomes did not indicate any capacity for autotrophy, phototrophy, or trace gas metabolism. Instead, they suggest a predominantly aerobic organoheterotrophic lifestyle, perhaps based on scavenging amino acids, nucleotides, and complex oligopeptides, along with lithotrophic capacity on thiosulfate. Network analyses of the entire community showed that some species of Chloroflexi , Actinobacteria , and candidate phylum AD3 (or Dormibacterota) co‐occurred with Ca. Rubrimentiphilum and may represent ecological or metabolic partners. We propose that Ca. Rubrimentiphilum act as efficient heterotrophic scavengers. Combined with previous studies, these data suggest that the phylum WPS‐2 includes bacteria with diverse metabolic capabilities.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".