Characterization and comparison of toxin‐producing isolates of <i>Dinophysis acuminata</i> from New England and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the identification of the first toxic isolate of Dinophysis acuminata from the northwestern Atlantic, we conducted detailed investigations into the morphology, phylogeny, physiology, and toxigenicity of three isolates from three sites within the northeastern U.S./Canada region: Eel Pond and Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, and the Bay of Fundy. Another isolate, collected from the Gulf of Mexico, was grown under the same light, temperature, and prey conditions for comparison. Despite observed phenotypic heterogeneity, morphometrics and molecular evidence classified the three northwestern Atlantic isolates as D. acuminata Claparède & Lachmann, whereas the isolate from the Gulf of Mexico was morphologically identified as D. cf. ovum. Physiological and toxin analyses supported these classifications, with the three northwestern Atlantic isolates being more similar to each other with respect to growth rate, toxin profile, and diarrhetic shellfish poisoning (DSP) toxin content (okadaic acid + dinophysistoxin 1/cell) than they were to the isolate from the Gulf of Mexico, which had toxin profiles similar to those published for D. cf. ovum F. Schütt. The DSP toxin content, 0.01-1.8 pg okadaic acid (OA) + dinophysistoxin (DTX1) per cell, of the three northwestern Atlantic isolates was low relative to other D. acuminata strains from elsewhere in the world, consistent with the relative scarcity of shellfish harvesting closures due to DSP toxins in the northeastern U.S. and Canada. If this pattern is repeated with the analyses of more geographically and temporally dispersed isolates from the region, it would appear that the risk of significant DSP toxin outbreaks in the northwestern Atlantic is low to moderate. Finally, the morphological, physiological, and toxicological variability within D. acuminata may reflect spatial (and/or temporal) population structure, and suggests that sub-specific resolution may be helpful in characterizing bloom dynamics and predicting toxicity.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".