MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966151998 · doi:10.1139/w10-021

Determination of methanogenic <i>Archaea</i> abundance in a mesophilic biogas plant based on 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis

2010· article· en· W1966151998 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jean‐François Bergmann, Edith Nettmann, K. Mundt, Michael Klocke

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethanomicrobialesBiology16S ribosomal RNABiogasMesophileArchaeaGeneBacteriaGeneticsMethanosarcinaEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Energy production of renewable raw material is of increasing importance for sustainable energy production. As an indispensable prerequirement for further upgrading of technical equipment and operation modes of biogas plants, a deeper knowledge of the microbial community responsible for methane formation is crucial. To overcome these limitations a mesophilic biogas plant converting pig manure, maize silage, and grains of crop was sampled and subsequently analysed by construction of a methanogenic Archaea specific 16S rRNA gene clone library combined with PCR-RFLP analysis and group-specific quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR). Seventy percent of all analysed clones belonged to the order Methanomicrobiales, whereas 13% belonged to Methanosarcinales, 6% belonged to the Methanobacteriales group, and 11% of all detected clones were assigned to the CA11 and Arch1 cluster. Comparable percentages were obtained with qPCR: 84% of all detected 16S rRNA gene copy numbers were affiliated with the Methanomicrobiales, while only 14% belonged to the Methanosarcinales and 2% to the Methanobacteriales order. In conclusion, both approaches detected similar archaeal groups and revealed nearly the same abundance, pointing to a predominance of hydrogenotrophic methanogens in the biogas plant.

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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations31
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas ProductionFrench-language works237,207