Effect of CNP on composition and structure of lotic biofilms as detected with lectin-specific glycoconjugates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biofilms were cultivated in rotating annular reactors supplied with river water supplemented with carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus or a combined nutrient addition. Confocal laser scanning microscopy and digital image analysis were used in combination with a panel of fluor-conjugated lectin probes to assess the changes in biofilm glycoconjugates with depth, time and in response to the nutrient additions. In addition, nucleic acid staining and autofluorescence were utilised to monitor bacterial and photosynthetic populations respectively. These analyses indicated that in lotic biofilms both quantitative and proportional differences in glycoconjugate composition developed under each nutrient regime. The differences in the biofilms were detected with time and with depth. Comparison of C, N, P, and CNP treatments with the control showed differences in the total amount of photosynthetic organisms, bacteria and extracellular polymeric substance (EPS)-specific glycoconjugates. For example, C, N, and CNP nutrient additions resulted in a minimal increase of 50% lectin-specific EPS glycoconjugates. Accumulation of different glycoconjugates over time in the different biofilms showed a similar pattern in the single nutrient treatments, with a maximum accumulation at 3 wk, followed by sloughing in Week 5 and regrowth in Week 7. In contrast, both the control and the combined CNP treatment showed a continuous increase and a plateau phase for the glycoconjugates as a whole. Both visualisation and quantification indicated that under each treatment the distribution of 4 specific glycoconjugates (Arachis hypogaea, Canavalia ensiformis, Glycine max, Ulex europaeus) varied with depth and, in addition, changed over time. Further, the glycoconjugate make-up of the single nutrient additions were similar to each other, as was the make-up of the control and combined nutrient treatment. Application of fluorescence in situ hybridisation analysis indicated that significant changes occurred in the beta-proteobacteria community composition as a consequence of nutrient addition. The results demonstrate the effect of nutrient regime on the cellular composition and glycoconjugate chemistry of lotic biofilms.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".