MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281289724 · doi:10.1099/ijsem.0.005386

Furfurilactobacillus milii sp. nov., isolated from fermented cereal foods

2022· article· en· W4281289724 on OpenAlexafffund
David J. Simpson, Justina S. Zhang, Vera D'Amico, Ma Goretti Llamas-Arriba, Michael G. Gänzle

Bibliographic record

VenueINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMATIC AND EVOLUTIONARY MICROBIOLOGY · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanada Research ChairsEuropean Cooperation in Science and Technology
KeywordsBiologyFermentationBotanyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genomic characterization of Furfurilactobacillus rossiae revealed that strains which were previously identified as F. rossiae are genetically heterogeneous. The 16S rRNA gene sequences of strains FUA3430, FUA3583, C5, FUA3115 and FUA3119, were 99.6 % identical to F. rossiae but the core genome analysis revealed that these strains share less than 93 % average nucleotide identity (ANI) with the F. rossiae type strain DSM 15814 T . Because the ANI value is below the threshold for delineation of bacterial species, we propose the novel species Furfurilactobacillus milii sp. nov. with the type strain FUA3430 T (=DSM 113338 T =LMG 32478 T ). Strains of F. milii have smaller genomes than F. rossiae , lack the pdu-cbi-cob-hem cluster which is responsible for 1,2-propanediol utilization in F. rossiae , and lack genes involved in ethanolamine utilization. Two strains of the novel species (FUA3430 T and FUA3583) were compared to F. rossiae FUA3214. Analysis of the cellular fatty acid composition and metabolite analysis did not reveal significant differences between F. milii sp. nov. and F. rossiae FUA3124. Although the growth requirements with respect to temperature and pH were very similar, only the strain of F. rossiae utilized melibiose and d -xylose. Morphological differences were also seen in the colony and cell size of the novel compared to F. rossiae .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.880

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMATIC AND EVOLUTIONARY MICROBIOLOGYSame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207