MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024177685 · doi:10.1134/s0003683812040138

Biofilm, ice recrystallization inhibition and freeze-thaw protection in an epiphyte community

2012· article· en· W2024177685 on OpenAlexaff
Zhongqin Wu, Frederick W. K. Kan, Yi‐Min She, Virginia K. Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Biochemistry and Microbiology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPolar Research and Ecology
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiofilmIce nucleusBacteriaMicrobial population biologyRecrystallization (geology)BiologyFrost (temperature)MicrobiologyChemistryEpiphyteExtracellularBotanyBiochemistryNucleation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microbial communities found on the surface of overwintering plants may be exposed to low temperatures as well as multiple freeze-thaw events. To explore the adaptive mechanisms of these epiphytes, with the objective of identifying products for freeze-protection, enrichment libraries were made from frost-exposed leaves. Of 15 identified bacteria from 60 individual clones, approximately half had ice-association activities, with the great majority showing high freeze-thaw resistance. Isolates with ice nucleation activity and ice recrystallization inhibition activity were recovered. Of the latter, two (Erwinia billingiae J10, and Sphingobacterium kitahiroshimense Y2) showed culture and electron microscopic evidence of motility and/or biofilm production. Mass spectrometric characterization of the E. billingiae extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) identified the major proteins as 35 kDa outer membrane protein A and F, supporting its biofilm character. The addition of the EPS preparation increased the freeze-thaw survival of the more susceptible bacteria 1000-10000 times, and protection was at least partially dependent on the protein component.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.213 · 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.

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

Citations25
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Biochemistry and MicrobiologySame topicPolar Research and EcologyFrench-language works237,207