MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phage Production and Maintenance of Stocks, Including Expected Stock Lifetimes

2009· article· en· W99830298 on OpenAlexaff
Louis‐Charles Fortier, Sylvain Moineau

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicBacteriophages and microbial interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBacteriophageOrganismBiologyStock (firearms)Biochemical engineeringBiotechnologyComputational biologyGeneticsEngineeringGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In microbiology, preservation of an archival stock or a "master stock" of a given microorganism is essential for many reasons including scientific research, conservation of the genetic resources and providing the foundation for several biotechnological processes. The objective is to preserve the initial characteristics of the microorganism and to avoid the genetic drift that occurs when the organism is maintained indefinitely in an actively growing state. The same holds true in phage biology and it is of particular interest when a collection of phages is to be maintained. The aim of this chapter is to provide phage biologists with general procedures to prepare and maintain bacteriophage stocks on a long-term basis. The protocols described below should be considered as general guidelines because although many phages and bacterial strains can be propagated and stored in these conditions, specific media and/or growth and storage conditions must be evaluated for each phage and bacterium. Since it was not the scope of this chapter to provide an exhaustive list of these particular conditions, we instead highlighted the main factors affecting phage amplification and storage. We hope this will help phage biologists to develop their own strategies for their preferred phages.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.352 · 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

Citations110
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicBacteriophages and microbial interactionsFrench-language works237,207