Evolutionary origins of Antarctic microbiota: invasion, selection and endemism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing interest in the ecological roles, conservation and biotechnological potential of Antarctic microbiota has focused attention on their biodiversity and evolutionary origins. Antarctic microbial ecosystems provide useful models for general questions in evolutionary ecology given the relative isolation of the South Polar Region, the severe biological constraints imposed by the polar environment, and the absence of higher plants and animals in some Antarctic habitats. Sealed environments such as Lake Vostok and the overlying East Antarctic ice sheet provide unique, natural culture collections for studying microorganisms that have been isolated from the global gene pool over timescales of evolutionary significance. Most Antarctic environments, however, continue to receive microbial propagules from outside the region, as indicated by spore trap data, the microflora found in Antarctic snow and ice, the colonising taxa at geothermal sites, and the high frequency of apparently cosmopolitan species in most habitats. Differences in environmental stability and selection pressure among environments are likely to influence the degree of adaptive radiation and microbial endemism. The latter seems greater in the Southern Ocean by comparison with non-marine ecosystems of Antarctica, although there is some evidence of endemic species in highly specialised niches on the continent such as in the endolithic habitat and saline lakes. Analytical techniques such as 16S rDNA sequencing and DNA–DNA hybridisation are beginning to provide new insights into the genetic affinities and biodiversity of Antarctic microbiota, and are leading to a more rigorous evaluation of microbial endemism.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".