MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3187996251 · doi:10.5539/jas.v13n9p155

Isolation of Bacillus From the Gut of Bombus terrestris and Its Correlation in Queen Mating

2021· article· en· W3187996251 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kai Li, Liuhao Wang, Zhengyi Zhang, Yulong Guo, Jun Guo, Nasar Amjad, Hira Mannan Shaikh, Jie Wu, Jilian Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMatingBiologyBacillus pumilusBacillus (shape)ZoologyBacillus cereusBombus terrestrisBacteriaMating typeMicrobiologyBotanyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The gut of bumblebees harbors bacteria that play a crucial role in physiology, nutrition, and health. The mating rate is important for the reproductive activity of a colony; however, few studies have investigated the relationship between mating and gut bacteria. In this study, bacterial functions were identified in the intestinal tract of bumblebees, and biochemical identification and screening were performed using genetic detection technology. By isolating and identifying bacteria, we obtained a single strain and fed it to queens. The results indicated that Bacillus cereus and Bacillus pumilus are present in the gut. The queen mating rates were 48.89% at the period of 4 days and higher than 28.89% mating rates of the control group (P < 0.05), and the latency time were 16.90 min (from entering the mating cage to mating success) and decreased than control (P < 0.05) which was 28.20 min. This finding confirmed that Bacillus was important in Bombus terrestris mating.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.228 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207