MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995602578 · doi:10.1139/w03-044

Toxic effects caused by heavy metals in the yeast <i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i>: a comparative study

2003· article· en· W1995602578 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eduardo V. Soares, Kristel Hebbelinck, Helena MVM Soares

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstituto Politécnico do Porto
KeywordsCopperChemistryNickelSaccharomyces cerevisiaeYeastBioavailabilityMetalToxicityCalciumNuclear chemistryChelationBiochemistryInorganic chemistryBiologyOrganic chemistryPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The decreasing order of toxicity of select heavy metals on the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, in 10 mM MES (2-(N-morpholino)ethanesulfonic acid) pH buffer at pH 6.0, was found to be copper, lead, and nickel. Heavy metal (200 microM) induced a decrease in the number of viable cells by about 50% in the first 5 min for copper and in 4 h for lead, while nickel was not toxic up to a 200 microM concentration over a period of 48 h. Glucose (25 mM) strongly enhanced the toxic effect of 50 microM copper but had little or no effect on the toxicity of 200 microM lead or nickel. Copper, lead, and nickel induced the leakage of UV260-absorbing compounds from cells with different kinetics. The addition of 0.5 mM calcium, before addition of 200 microM copper, showed a protective action against cell death and decreased the release of UV-absorbing compounds, while no effect was observed against lead or nickel toxic effects. Copper complexation capacities of the filtrates of cells exposed for 2 h in 200 microM copper and 24 h in 200 microM lead were 51 and 14 microM, respectively. The implication of the complexation shown by these soluble compounds in the bioavailability of heavy metals is discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.219 · 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.

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

Citations84
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyFrench-language works237,207