MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084239798 · doi:10.1021/bi0105532

Analysis of Sulfur Biochemistry of Sulfur Bacteria Using X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy

2001· article· en· W2084239798 on OpenAlexaff
Ingrid J. Pickering, Graham N. George, Eileen Y. Yu, Daniel C. Brune, Christian Tuschak, Jörg Overmann, J. Thomas Beatty, Roger C. Prince

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicX-ray Spectroscopy and Fluorescence Analysis
Canadian institutionsExxonMobil (Canada)University of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsSulfurOxidizing agentBacteriaChromatiumChemistryGreen sulfur bacteriaSulfideAbsorption (acoustics)Absorption spectroscopySulfur metabolismPhotosynthesisBiochemistryMaterials scienceOrganic chemistryPhototrophBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many sulfide-oxidizing organisms, including the photosynthetic sulfur bacteria, store sulfur in "sulfur globules" that are readily detected microscopically. The chemical form of sulfur in these globules is currently the focus of a debate, because they have been described as "liquid" by some observers, although no known allotrope of sulfur is liquid at physiological temperatures. In the present work we have used sulfur K-edge X-ray absorption spectroscopy to identify and quantify the chemical forms of sulfur in a variety of bacterial cells, including photosynthetic sulfur bacteria. We have also taken advantage of X-ray fluorescence self-absorption to derive estimates of the size and density of the sulfur globules in photosynthetic bacteria. We find that the form of sulfur that most resembles the globule sulfur is simply solid S(8), rather than more exotic forms previously proposed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations157
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistrySame topicX-ray Spectroscopy and Fluorescence AnalysisFrench-language works237,207