Toward a Biotic Ligand Model for Freshwater Green Algae: Surface-Bound and Internal Copper Are Better Predictors of Toxicity than Free Cu<sup>2+</sup>-Ion Activity When pH Is Varied
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The freshwater green microalgae Chlorella sp. and Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata (P. subcapitata) were chronically (48 and 72 h, respectively) exposed to copper at various pH levels, i.e., pH 6-7.5 and pH 5.9-8.5, respectively. Concentrations resulting in 50% inhibition of exponential growth rate (EC50) were determined as dissolved Cu, estimated chemical activity of the free Cu2+ ion (as pCu = - log{Cu2+ activity as molarity}), and as external (surface-bound) Cu and internal Cu in the algal cells. With increasing pH, EC50dissolved decreased from 30 to 1.1 microg of Cu L(-1) for Chlorella sp. and from 46 to 18 microg of Cu L(-1) for P. subcapitata. The pH effect on copper toxicity was even more obvious when expressed as Cu2+ activity. The EC50pCu increased on average 1.4 pCu unit per pH unit for Chlorella sp. and 1.1 pCu unit per pH unit for P. subcapitata, thus indicating a marked increase of Cu2+ toxicity at higher pH (more than 1 order of magnitude per pH unit). In contrast, it was found that EC50 values expressed as surface bound or external copper (EC50external) and as internal copper (EC50internal) did not vary substantially when pH was increased. External Cu was operationally defined as the Cu fraction removable from the algal cell by short-term contact with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid; internal copper was defined as the nonremovable fraction. For Chlorella sp. the EC50external varied between 5 and 10 fg of Cu/ cell (factor of 2 difference) and the EC50internal between 25 and 40 fg of Cu/cell (factor of 1.6 difference). For P. subcapitata the EC50external varied between 10 and 28 fg of Cu/cell (factor of 2.8 difference) and the EC50internal between 42 and 71 fg of Cu/cell (factor of 1.7 difference). Because the observed variation in EC50external and EC50internal is much less than the variation in EC50Cu2+, it is concluded that both external and internal copper are better predictors of copper toxicity than Cu2+ when pH is varied. From the perspective of toxicity modeling, this observation is the first step toward considering the use of the cell surface as the algal biotic ligand for Cu in a similar way as fish gills fulfill this role in the biotic ligand model for predicting metal toxicity to fish species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".