Phosphate removal under denitrifying conditions by<i>Brachymonas</i>sp. strain P12 and<i>Paracoccus denitrificans</i>PP15
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we used the denitrifying phosphorus-removing bacterium Brachymonas sp. strain P12 to investigate the enhanced biologic phosphorus-removal (EBPR) mechanism involved with polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB), glycogen, and phosphorus uptake in the presence of acetate under anoxic or aerobic conditions. The results showed that excess acetate concentration and aerobic cultivation can enhance PHB formation efficiency and that PHB formation might be stimulated by glycogenolysis of the cellular glycogen. The efficiency of the uptake of anoxic phosphorus was greater when PHB production was lower. The EBPR mechanism of Brachymonas sp. strain P12 for PHB, phosphorus, and glycogen was similar to the conventional anaerobic-aerobic (or anaerobic-anoxic) EBPR models, but these models were developed under anoxic or aerobic conditions only, without an anaerobic stage. The anoxic or aerobic log phase of growth is divided into two main phases: the early log phase, in which acetate and glycogen are consumed to supply enough energy and reducing power for PHB formation and cell growth (phosphorus assimilation), and the late log phase, which ends the simultaneous degradation of PHB and remaining acetate for polyphosphate accumulation. Glycogenolysis plays a significant role in the alternate responses between PHB formation and phosphorus uptake under anoxic or aerobic conditions. After the application of the denitrifying phosphorus-removing bacterium Brachymonas sp. strain P12, aerobic cultivation increases the level of PHB production, and anoxic cultivation further increases phosphorus uptake.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".