MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366982302 · doi:10.1099/ijsem.0.005500

Proposed minimal standards for description of methanogenic archaea

2023· article· en· W4366982302 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Om Prakash, Jeremy A. Dodsworth, Xiuzhu Dong, James G. Ferry, Stéphane L’Haridon, Hiroyuki Imachi, Yoichi Kamagata, Sung‐Keun Rhee, Isita Sagar, V. A. Shcherbakova, Dirk Wagner, William B. Whitman

Bibliographic record

VenueINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMATIC AND EVOLUTIONARY MICROBIOLOGY · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBasic Energy SciencesJapan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and TechnologyRussian Academy of SciencesJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceMinistry of Science and ICT, South KoreaNational Research FoundationCanadian Patient Safety InstituteNational Research Foundation of KoreaU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyArchaeaPolyphylyMetagenomicsCandidatusPhylogenetic treeComputational biologyBacterial taxonomyGenomeGeneticsGeneTaxonomy (biology)Evolutionary biologyPhylogenetic nomenclaturePhylogenetics16S ribosomal RNACladeEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methanogenic archaea are a diverse, polyphyletic group of strictly anaerobic prokaryotes capable of producing methane as their primary metabolic product. It has been over three decades since minimal standards for their taxonomic description have been proposed. In light of advancements in technology and amendments in systematic microbiology, revision of the older criteria for taxonomic description is essential. Most of the previously recommended minimum standards regarding phenotypic characterization of pure cultures are maintained. Electron microscopy and chemotaxonomic methods like whole-cell protein and lipid analysis are desirable but not required. Because of advancements in DNA sequencing technologies, obtaining a complete or draft whole genome sequence for type strains and its deposition in a public database are now mandatory. Genomic data should be used for rigorous comparison to close relatives using overall genome related indices such as average nucleotide identity and digital DNA–DNA hybridization. Phylogenetic analysis of the 16S rRNA gene is also required and can be supplemented by phylogenies of the mcrA gene and phylogenomic analysis using multiple conserved, single-copy marker genes. Additionally, it is now established that culture purity is not essential for studying prokaryotes, and description of Candidatus methanogenic taxa using single-cell or metagenomics along with other appropriate criteria is a viable alternative. The revisions to the minimal criteria proposed here by the members of the Subcommittee on the Taxonomy of Methanogenic Archaea of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes should allow for rigorous yet practical taxonomic description of these important and diverse microbes.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.008
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0090.006
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.007

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 head0.277
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMATIC AND EVOLUTIONARY MICROBIOLOGYSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207