The Role of Coral-Associated Bacterial Communities in Australian Subtropical White Syndrome of Turbinaria mesenterina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Australian Subtropical White Syndrome (ASWS) is an infectious, temperature dependent disease of the subtropical coral Turbinaria mesenterina involving a hitherto unknown transmissible causative agent. This report describes significant changes in the coral associated bacterial community as the disease progresses from the apparently healthy tissue of ASWS affected coral colonies, to areas of the colony affected by ASWS lesions, to the dead coral skeleton exposed by ASWS. In an effort to better understand the potential roles of bacteria in the formation of disease lesions, the effect of antibacterials on the rate of lesion progression was tested, and both culture based and culture independent techniques were used to investigate the bacterial communities associated with colonies of T. mesenterina. Culture-independent analysis was performed using the Oligonucleotide Fingerprinting of Ribosomal Genes (OFRG) technique, which allowed a library of 8094 cloned bacterial 16S ribosomal genes to be analysed. Interestingly, the bacterial communities associated with both healthy and disease affected corals were very diverse and ASWS associated communities were not characterized by a single dominant organism. Treatment with antibacterials had a significant effect on the rate of progress of disease lesions (p = 0.006), suggesting that bacteria may play direct roles as the causative agents of ASWS. A number of potential aetiological agents of ASWS were identified in both the culture-based and culture-independent studies. In the culture-independent study an Alphaproteobacterium closely related to Roseovarius crassostreae, the apparent aetiological agent of juvenile oyster disease, was found to be significantly associated with disease lesions. In the culture-based study Vibrio harveyi was consistently associated with ASWS affected coral colonies and was not isolated from any healthy colonies. The differing results of the culture based and culture-independent studies highlight the importance of using both approaches in the investigation of microbial communities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".