The experimental silicification of Aquificales and their role in hot spring sinter formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Archean microfossils provide some of the earliest physical evidence for life on Earth, yet there remains a great deal of uncertainty regarding which micro‐organisms were actually preserved. Because of the limited cellular detail remaining, interpretation of those microfossils has been based solely on size and morphology. This has led to significant controversy surrounding the presence or absence of cyanobacteria as early as 3.5 billion years. Accordingly, there has been an experimental bias towards studying their silicification. Here we report the very first findings on thermophilic bacteria–silica interactions, and investigate how Sulfurihydrogenibium azorense , a representative of the Aquificales often found as prominent members of modern hot spring vent communities, interacts with highly siliceous hydrothermal fluids. We show that adsorption of silica is limited to silica polymers and colloids, and that the magnitude of silica adsorption is dependent on its chemolithoautotrophic pathway. Intriguingly, when S. azorense is grown as a H 2 ‐oxidizer, it responds to increasing silica concentrations by producing a protein‐rich biofilm that may afford the cells protection against cell wall silicification. Although the biofilms of Aquificales could potentially contribute to or accelerate siliceous sinter formation under certain growth conditions, the cells themselves show a low preservation potential and are unlikely to have been preserved in the ancient rock record, despite phylogenetic analyses suggesting that they represent one of the most primordial life forms.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".