MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091968516 · doi:10.1139/w03-009

Degradation of phenanthrene and naphthalene by a<i>Burkholderia</i>species strain

2003· article· en· W2091968516 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hoseok Kang, Sang Won Hwang, Y M Kim, Eui-Seong Kim, S K Kim, Si Wouk Kim, Carl E. Cerniglia, Kay L. Shuttleworth, Gerben J. Zylstra

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicrobial bioremediation and biosurfactants
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKorea Science and Engineering FoundationYonsei UniversityEast Tennessee State University
KeywordsPhenanthreneNaphthaleneMetaboliteChemistryChromatographyBacteriaStrain (injury)Microbial biodegradationHigh-performance liquid chromatographyDegradation (telecommunications)BurkholderiaSubstrate (aquarium)Organic chemistryBiochemistryMicroorganismBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Burkholderia sp. TNFYE-5 was isolated from soil for the ability to grow on phenanthrene as sole carbon and energy source. Unlike most other phenanthrene-degrading bacteria, TNFYE-5 was unable to grow on naphthalene. Growth substrate range experiments coupled with the ring-cleavage enzyme assay data suggest that TNFYE-5 initially metabolizes phenanthrene to 1-hydroxy-2-naphthoate with subsequent degradation through the phthalate and protocatechuate and beta-ketoadipate pathway. A metabolite in the degradation of naphthalene by TNFYE-5 was isolated by high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) and was identified as salicylate by UV-visible spectral and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analyses. Thus, the inability to degrade salicylate is apparently one major reason for the incapability of TNFYE-5 to grow on naphthalene.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.185
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations46
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicMicrobial bioremediation and biosurfactantsFrench-language works237,207