THE ROLE OF CARBONIC ANHYDRASE IN THE FORMATION OF <i>MOUGEOTIA</i> (CHAROPHYCEAE) BLOOMS IN ACIDIC ENVIRONMENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mougeotia sp, a dominant component of a metaphytic algal bloom‐forming alga in an experimentally acidified lake (Little Rock Lake, Vilas Co. WI) was isolated to analyze pH effects on carbonic anhydrase (CA) activity, localization, and algal morphology. A potentiometric method was used to assess internal and external CA activities using two CA inhibitors, ethoxyzolamide (EZA) and acetazolamide (AZA) in cultures grown at pH 5 and pH 8. External and total CA activities at pH 8 were significantly greater than those at pH 5, but internal CA activities were not significantly different at both pH levels. The non‐penetrating inhibitor AZA inhibited external CA activity at pH 8, whereas EZA, which inhibits internal CA activity in some green algae, did not inhibit Mougeotia CA activity, possibly because of permeability problems. Ultrastructural immunogold labeling with a polyclonal antibody for Chlamydomonas external CA suggested that an antigenically‐similar enzyme was located in the periplasmic space and inflated end walls of Mougeotia grown at both pHs. This antibody, labeled the Mougeotia chloroplast, but not the pyrenoid and cytoplasmic peripheral regions. Activity measurements, inhibitor results, and localization data were consistent with the operation of a carbon concentrating mechanism (CCM) at both pH levels. Growth form, cell dimensions, chloroplast morphology, and cell wall ultrastructure were significantly different in cultures grown at both pH levels. These features probably contributed to the ability of Mougeotia to form blooms in acidified waters. A polyclonal antibody to pea chloroplast CA did not label Mougeotia, suggesting evolutionarily significant differences in the plastid CA systems of this alga and higher land plants.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".