Possible roles of reactive chlorine II: assessing biotic chlorination as a way for organisms to handle oxygen stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural formation of organically bound chlorine is extensive in many environments. The enzymes associated with the formation of chlorinated organic matter are produced by a large variety of organisms. Little is known about the ecological role of the process, the key question being: why do microorganisms promote chlorination of organic matter? In a recent paper we discuss whether organic matter chlorination may be a result of antagonistic interactions among microorganisms. In the present paper we evaluate whether extracellular microbial formation of reactive chlorine may be used as a defence against oxygen stress, and we discuss whether this process is likely to contribute to the formation of chlorinated organic matter. Our analysis suggests that periodic exposure to elevated concentrations of reactive oxygen species is a common denominator among the multitude of organisms that are able to enzymatically catalyse formation of reactive chlorine. There is also some evidence suggesting that the production of such enzymes in algae and bacteria is induced by oxygen stress. The relative contribution from this process to the extensive formation of chlorinated organic matter in natural environments remains to be empirically assessed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".