Abundance of culturable versus viable<i>Escherichia coli</i>in freshwater
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approved methods traditionally used for Escherichia coli enumeration in waters are culture-based. However, these methods can underestimate the E. coli abundance in aquatic systems because they do not take into account cells that remain viable but have lost the ability to grow in or on culture media. We investigated, in freshwater samples, the abundance of (i) culturable E. coli, enumerated by the most probable number microplate method and (ii) viable E. coli, estimated using a procedure called DVC-FISH, which couples fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) and a viability testing technique (direct viable count (DVC)). The ratio of culturable to viable E. coli was close to 1 in highly contaminated waters (samples with a high concentration of culturable E. coli), but decreased drastically for weakly contaminated samples. This indicates a large fraction of viable but nonculturable (VBNC) E. coli in the latter samples. Microcosm experiments showed that some environmental factors, such as nutrient scarcity and solar irradiation, could lead to the presence of a high proportion of VBNC E. coli.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".