MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

SOURCE OF INORGANIC CARBON FOR PHOTOSYNTHESIS IN TWO MARINE DINOFLAGELLATES<sup>1</sup>

2004· article· en· W2141847256 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey S. Dason, I. Emma Huertas, Brian Colman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Phycology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics research
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBicarbonatePhotosynthesisTotal inorganic carbonBiologySeawaterCarbonic anhydraseEnvironmental chemistryCarbon dioxideBotanyBiochemistryChemistryEcologyEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inorganic carbon uptake was investigated in two marine dinoflagellates, Amphidinium carterae Hulburt and Heterocapsa oceanica Stein. Mass spectrometric and potentiometric assays indicated that both species lacked external carbonic anhydrase (CA). The presence of internal CA was demonstrated by potentiometric assay and by the inhibition of photosynthesis upon the addition of 500 μM ethoxyzolamide a membrane‐permeable inhibitor of CA. The capacity for bicarbonate transport was investigated by comparing the calculated rate of spontaneous CO2 formation at pH 8.2 and 25°C with the rate of photosynthesis after the addition of 100 μM NaHCO3. Both species appeared to have a very limited capacity for direct bicarbonate uptake. Monitoring of CO2 and O2 fluxes in both species by mass spectrometry demonstrated a rapid uptake of CO2 on illumination, to concentrations below the CO2 equilibrium concentration, indicating an effective selective uptake of CO2. This dependence of photosynthesis on free CO2 alone suggests that these species are CO2 limited in their natural environment because the CO2 concentration of seawater is very low.

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations55
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PhycologySame topicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics researchFrench-language works237,207