Molecular study of bacterial diversity within the trophosome of the vestimentiferan tubeworm <i><scp>R</scp>idgeia piscesae</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A large proportion of the faunal biomass in hydrothermal vent ecosystems relies on symbiotic relationships, with bacteria as a source of nutrition. Whereas multiple symbioses have been observed in diverse vent hosts, siboglinid tubeworms have been thought to harbour a single endosymbiont phylotype affiliated to the Gammaproteobacteria. In the case of the Northeast Pacific vestimentiferan Ridgeia piscesae, two previous studies suggested the presence of more than one symbiont. The possibility of multiple, and possibly habitat‐specific, symbionts in R. piscesae provided a potential explanation for the tubeworm's broad ecological niche, compared with other hydrothermal vent siboglinids. This study further explored the diversity of trophosome bacteria in R. piscesae using two methodological approaches not yet applied to this symbiosis. We carried out 454‐pyrosequencing on trophosome samples from 46 individual worms and used catalyzed reporter deposition‐fluorescence in situ hybridization (CARD‐FISH) to verify the presence of the major groups detected in the pyrotag data. Both methods yielded inconsistent and sometimes contradictory results between sampling sites, and neither provided irrefutable evidence for the presence of symbionts other than the expected Gammaproteobacteria. We therefore conclude that the other adaptive mechanisms must be considered to explain the broad physico‐chemical niche occupied by the different growth forms of R. piscesae.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".