A Small Volume Bioassay to Assess Bacterial/Phytoplankton Co-culture Using WATER-Pulse-Amplitude-Modulated (WATER-PAM) Fluorometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conventional methods for experimental manipulation of microalgae have employed large volumes of culture (20 ml to 5 L), so that the culture can be subsampled throughout the experiment1-7. Subsampling of large volumes can be problematic for several reasons: 1) it causes variation in the total volume and the surface area:volume ratio of the culture during the experiment; 2) pseudo-replication (i.e., replicate samples from the same treatment flask8) is often employed rather than true replicates (i.e., sampling from replicate treatments); 3) the duration of the experiment is limited by the total volume; and 4) axenic cultures or the usual bacterial microbiota are difficult to maintain during long-term experiments as contamination commonly occurs during subsampling. The use of microtiter plates enables 1 ml culture volumes to be used for each replicate, with up to 48 separate treatments within a 12.65x8.5x2.2 cm plate, thereby decreasing the experimental volume and allowing for extensive replication without subsampling any treatment. Additionally, this technique can be modified to fit a variety of experimental formats including: bacterial-algal co-cultures, algal physiology tests, and toxin screening9-11. Individual wells with an alga, bacterium and/or co-cultures can be sampled for numerous laboratory procedures including, but not limited to: WATER-Pulse-Amplitude-Modulated (WATER-PAM) fluorometry, microscopy, bacterial colony forming unit (cfu) counts and flow cytometry. The combination of the microtiter plate format and WATER-PAM fluorometry allows for multiple rapid measurements of photochemical yield and other photochemical parameters with low variability between samples, high reproducibility and avoids the many pitfalls of subsampling a carboy or conical flask over the course of an experiment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".