The surface physicochemistry and adhesiveness of Shewanella are affected by their surface polysaccharides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shewanella strains have previously been studied with regard to their cell surface ultrastructure and LPS composition. They have now been further characterized with respect to their surface physicochemistry and ability to adhere to haematite. The surfaces of the Shewanella strains were found to be electronegative and hydrophilic, and these properties could be correlated with LPS composition or the presence of capsular polysaccharides. Strains expressing rough LPS with no capsule were more hydrophobic and electronegative than those possessing smooth LPS or capsules. By combining different approaches, such as contact-angle measurement, hydrophilic/hydrophobic chromatography, microelectrophoresis, adhesion assays and calculation of interaction energies, it was shown that electrostatic interactions predominate over hydrophobic interactions at the cell-iron oxide interface. Bacterial adhesion to haematite was significantly reduced in strains expressing smooth LPS or a capsule. These findings remained true for Shewanella strains grown under either aerobic or anaerobic conditions, although the surfaces of anaerobic cells appeared to be less electronegative and more hydrophilic than those of aerobic cells.
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) | 0.001 | 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".