MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

BIOLOGICAL AVAILABILITY OF IRON TO THE FRESHWATER CYANOBACTERIUM <i>ANABAENA FLOS‐AQUAE</i><sup>1</sup>

2004· article· en· W2049301513 on OpenAlexaff
Courtney D. Gress, Ron G. Treble, Carlyn J. Matz, Harold G. Weger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Phycology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatchewan HealthUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSiderophoreAnabaenaCyanobacteriaChelationBioavailabilityEnvironmental chemistryFerritinFerricHumic acidBiologyChemistryBiochemistryInorganic chemistryBacteriaEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Iron acquisition from various ferric chelates and colloids was studied using iron‐limited cells of Anabaena flos‐aquae (Lyng.) Brèb UTEX 1444, a cyanobacterial strain that produces high levels of siderophores under iron limitation. Various chelators of greatly varying affinity for Fe 3+ (HEDTA, EDDHA, desferrioxamine mesylate, HBED, 8‐hydroxyquinoline) were assayed for the degree of iron acquisition by iron‐limited cyanobacterial cells. Iron uptake rates (measured by graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry) varied approximately inversely with calculated [Fe 3+ ] (calculated as pFe) and decreased with increasing chelator‐to‐iron ratio. No iron uptake was observed when Fe 3+ was chelated with HBED, the strongest of the tested chelators. Iron‐limited Anabaena cells were able to take up iron from 8‐hydroxyquinoline (oxine or 8HQ), a compound sometimes used to quantify aquatic iron bioavailability. Iron bound to purified humic acid was poorly available but did support some growth at high humic acid concentrations. These results suggest that for cyanobacteria, even tightly bound iron is biologically available, including to a limited extent iron bound to humic acids. However, iron bound to some extremely strong chelators (e.g. HBED) is likely to be biologically unavailable.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.210 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations37
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PhycologySame topicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton DynamicsFrench-language works237,207