X-Ray Absorption Spectroscopy as a Probe of Microbial Sulfur Biochemistry: the Nature of Bacterial Sulfur Globules Revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The chemical nature of the sulfur in bacterial sulfur globules has been the subject of controversy for a number of years. Sulfur K-edge X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS) is a powerful technique for probing the chemical forms of sulfur in situ, but two groups have used it with very different conclusions. The root of the controversy lies with the different detection strategies used by the two groups, which result in very different spectra. This paper seeks to resolve the controversy. We experimentally demonstrate that the use of transmittance detection for sulfur K-edge XAS measurements is highly prone to spectroscopic distortions and that much of the published work on sulfur bacteria is very likely based on distorted data. We also demonstrate that all three detection methods used for X-ray absorption experiments yield essentially identical spectra when the measurements are carried out under conditions where no experimental distortions are expected. Finally, we turn to the original question--the chemical nature of bacterial sulfur. We examine isolated sulfur globules of Allochromatium vinosum and intact cells of a strain of magnetotactic coccus and show that XAS indicates the presence of a chemical form of sulfur resembling S(8).
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".