Production and Consumption of Nitric Oxide by Three Methanotrophic Bacteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied nitrogen oxide production and consumption by methanotrophs Methylobacter luteus (group I), Methylosinus trichosporium OB3b (group II), and an isolate from a hardwood swamp soil, here identified by 16S ribosomal DNA sequencing as Methylobacter sp. strain T20 (group I). All could consume nitric oxide (nitrogen monoxide, NO), and produce small amounts of nitrous oxide (N(2)O). Only Methylobacter strain T20 produced large amounts of NO (>250 parts per million by volume [ppmv] in the headspace) at specific activities of up to 2.0 x 10(-17) mol of NO cell(-1) day(-1), mostly after a culture became O(2) limited. Production of NO by strain T20 occurred mostly in nitrate-containing medium under anaerobic or nearly anaerobic conditions, was inhibited by chlorate, tungstate, and O(2), and required CH(4). Denitrification (methanol-supported N(2)O production from nitrate in the presence of acetylene) could not be detected and thus did not appear to be involved in the production of NO. Furthermore, cd(1) and Cu nitrite reductases, NO reductase, and N(2)O reductase could not be detected by PCR amplification of the nirS, nirK, norB, and nosZ genes, respectively. M. luteus and M. trichosporium produced some NO in ammonium-containing medium under aerobic conditions, likely as a result of methanotrophic nitrification and chemical decomposition of nitrite. For Methylobacter strain T20, arginine did not stimulate NO production under aerobiosis, suggesting that NO synthase was not involved. We conclude that strain T20 causes assimilatory reduction of nitrate to nitrite, which then decomposes chemically to NO. The production of NO by methanotrophs such as Methylobacter strain T20 could be of ecological significance in habitats near aerobic-anaerobic interfaces where fluctuating O(2) and nitrate availability occur.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".