MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Distribution, genetic richness and phage sensitivity of <i>Vibrio</i> spp. from coastal British Columbia

2007· article· en· W1928453655 on OpenAlexafffundabout
A. Comeau, Curtis A. Suttle

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Microbiology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVibrio bacteria research studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyVibrioWater columnSpecies richnessVibrio vulnificusGenetic diversitySedimentEcologyVibrio parahaemolyticusDiversity indexMicrobiologyBacteriaGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the distribution, susceptibility to viral infection and genetic diversity of Vibrio spp. in the coastal waters and sediments of British Columbia during summer (July and August). Abundances of presumptive Vibrio spp. ranged from 1.5 to 346 ml(-1) within the water column (1-291 m); whereas, abundances at the water-sediment interface were much higher (up to approximately 3 x 10(4)Vibrio spp. cc(-1)), and decreased with sediment depth (down to 30 cm). The genetic diversity of Vibrio spp. isolates was not tied to the location from which they originated and was only influenced in a minor way by the type of environment. However, the environment had a greater effect on phage-typing patterns. Vibrio parahaemolyticus isolates from environments with high abundances of cells (sediments and oysters) were generally more susceptible to viral infection than those from the water column which were highly resistant. Therefore, although Vibrio spp. were widespread in the areas investigated, the results show that there is segregation of bacterial host strains in different environments, under differing selection pressures, which ultimately will affect in situ phage production.

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 score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations13
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental MicrobiologySame topicVibrio bacteria research studiesFrench-language works237,207