On the lineage of <i>Aspergillus fumigatus</i> isolates in common laboratory use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The origin of isolates routinely used by the community of Aspergillus fumigatus researchers is periodically a matter of intense discussion at our centre, as the construction of recombinant isolates have sometimes followed convoluted routes, the documentation describing their lineages is fragmented, and the nomenclature is confusing. As an aide memoir, not least for our own benefit, we submit the following account and tabulated list of strains (Table 1) in an effort to collate all of the relevant information in a single, easily accessible document. To maximise the accuracy of this record we have consulted widely amongst the community of Medical Mycologists using these strains. All the strains described are currently available from one of these organisations, namely the Fungal Genetics Stock Centre (FGSC), FungiDB, Ensembl Fungi and The National Collection of Pathogenic Fungi (NCPF) at Public Health England. Display items from this manuscript are also featured on FungiDB. LAY ABSTRACT: We present a concise overview on the definition, origin and unique genetic makeup of the Aspergillus fumigatus isolates routinely in use by the fungal research community, to aid researchers to describe past and new strains and the experimental differences observed more accurately.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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".