<i>Marinitoga</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ma.ri.ni.to.ga. L. masc. adj. marinus , of or belonging to the sea, marine; L. fem. n. toga , Roman outer garment; N.L. fem. n. Marinitoga, a marine toga, referring to the marine isolation of the organism and the presence of a ‘toga’‐like sheath. Marinitoga spp. are members of the phylum Thermotogota , class Thermotogae, order Petrotogales , and family Petrotogaceae . The genus encompasses eight species: M. aeolica , M. arctica , M. camini , M. hydrogenitolerans , M. lauensis , M. litoralis , M. okinawensis , and M. piezophila . Marinitoga spp. are Gram‐stain‐negative rod‐shaped cells surrounded by an outer sheath‐like structure. Marinitoga are anaerobes, chemoorganotrophs, thermophiles, and slight halophiles. All Marinitoga spp. reduce elemental sulfur to H 2 S. Additionally, M. piezophila , M. hydrogenitolerans , M. lauensis , and M. litoralis can reduce thiosulfate. M. hydrogenitolerans , M. okinawensis , and M. litoralis can grow under a 100% hydrogen gas phase. M. piezophila grows optimally under hydrostatic pressure of 40 MPa. Known habitats of Marinitoga spp. are shallow and deep‐sea hydrothermal vents. DNA G + C content (mol%) : 26.5–29 (Genome analysis). Type species : Marinitoga camini Wery et al. 2001 VP . Taxonomic and Nomenclature Notes According to the List of Prokaryotic names with Standing in Nomenclature (LPSN), the taxonomic status of the genus Marinitoga is: correct name (last update, February 2025) * . LPSN classification: Bacteria / Thermotogati / Thermotogota / Thermotogae / Petrotogales / Petrotogaceae / Marinitoga The genus Marinitoga can also be recovered in the Genome Taxonomy Database (GTDB) as g__Marinitoga (version v220) ** . GTDB classification: d__Bacteria / p__Thermotogota / c__Thermotogae / o__Petrotogales / f__Petrotogaceae / g__Marinitoga * Meier‐Kolthoff et al. ( 2022 ). Nucleic Acids Res , 50 , D801 – D807 ; DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkab902 ** <jats:mixed-citation publicati
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".