MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152141309 · doi:10.1139/f09-052

Clostridium botulinum type E occurs and grows in the alga Cladophora glomerata

2009· article· en· W2152141309 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Muruleedhara N. Byappanahalli, Richard L. Whitman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsCladophoraMesocosmBiologyAlgaeBotanyEcologyClostridiaceaeMicrobiologyToxin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, massive avian die-offs from Clostridium botulinum type E infection have occurred in the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore (SLBE) area of Lake Michigan. These outbreaks have been coincidental with massive blooms of the green algae Cladophora , mostly Cladophora glomerata . We tested the hypothesis that Clostridium botulinum type E can grow under suitable conditions in these algal mats. In a lab mesocosm study, Cladophora from four outbreak-impacted beaches from SLBE were compared with four unimpacted beaches in the Milwaukee–Racine area for bontE gene of Clostridium botulinum. Frequency of the bontE gene was higher after incubation (25 °C for up to 6 weeks) of Cladophora from impacted vs. the unimpacted area. Since no type E gene was detected initially in Cladophora from any of the eight locations, we infer that the increased occurrence of type E gene arose from spore germination or vegetative Clostridium growth within the existing algal mats of SLBE. Moreover, we found that the congener Clostridium perfringens readily grows in mesocosms containing Cladophora.

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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations41
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingFrench-language works237,207