MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971882161 · doi:10.1139/w07-012

Comparison of element levels in minimal and complex yeast media

2007· article· en· W1971882161 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lenka Abelovska, Marek Bujdoš, Jana Kubová, Silvia Petrezsélyová, Jozef Nosek, Ľubomír Tomáška

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFogarty International Center
KeywordsYeastMagnesiumPotassiumManganeseZincPhosphorusYeast extractSodiumCalciumBiologyPhenotypeBacteriaCopperBiochemistryStrain (injury)Food scienceNutrientChemistryEcologyFermentationGeneticsOrganic chemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cellular functions are strongly influenced by the composition of the environment. In particular, phenotypes of microbial strains are modulated by concentrations of ions in the culture medium, and differences in element levels may be responsible for a phenotypic variability observed when microbial strains are grown on synthetic versus complex media. In this report, we analyzed the levels of nine elements (magnesium, potassium, sodium, calcium, iron, copper, manganese, zinc, and phosphorus) and sulphate ions in commercially available peptone and yeast extract and compared them with those in yeast nitrogen base routinely used for preparation of synthetic minimal media. We observed that whereas some elements are present at similar levels, the levels of others differ by a factor as high as 20. The observed differences should be taken into account when interpreting different phenotypes observed for microbial strains grown on synthetic versus complex media.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations27
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen RemovalFrench-language works237,207