Markers to Rapidly Distinguish Bacillus paralicheniformis From the Very Close Relative, Bacillus licheniformis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As close relatives, Bacillus paralicheniformis is often wrongly identified as Bacillus licheniformis. In this study, two genetic markers are presented based on fenC and fenD from the fengycin operon of B. paralicheniformis to rapidly distinguish it from B. licheniformis. The fengycin operon is one of the few present in B. paralicheniformis but absent in B. lichenformis up to date. Using these markers, two presumptive B. paralicheniformis isolates each were recovered from a set of isolates previously identified as B. licheniformis by Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight (MALDI-TOF) or identified only to genus level as Bacillus by 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene sequencing, respectively. Whole genome sequencing of the four isolates confirmed their identity as B. paralicheniformis having the closest similarity with B. paralicheniformis ATCC 9945a (GenBank: CP005965.1) with a 7,682 k-mer score and 97.22% Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI). ANI of 100% suggests that the four isolates are highly similar. Further analysis will be necessary to determine if finer differences exist among these isolates at the level of single nucleotide polymorphisms.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".