Poly-β-hydroxybutyrate accumulation in bacterial consortia from different environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to examine soil samples from various vegetation zones in terms of physicochemical properties, microbial communities, and isolation and identification (by polymerase chain reaction and transmission electron microscopy) of bacteria producing poly-β-hydroxybutyrates (PHBs). Soil samples were analysed originating from zones with heterogeneous environmental conditions from the Romanian Carpathian Mountains (mountain zone with alpine meadow, karstic zone with limestone meadow, hill zone with xerophilous meadow, and flood plain zone with hygrophilic meadow). Different bacterial groups involved in the nitrogen cycle (aerobic mesophilic heterotrophs, ammonifiers, denitrifiers, nitrifiers, and free nitrogen-fixing bacteria from Azotobacter genus) were analysed. Soil biological quality was assessed by the bacterial indicator of soil quality, which varied between 4.3 and 4.7. A colony polymerase chain reaction technique was used for screening PHB producers. With different primers, specific bands were obtained in all the soil samples. Some wild types of Azotobacter species were isolated from the 4 studied sites. Biodegradable polymers of PHB were assessed by negative staining in transmission electron microscopy. The maximum PHB granules density was obtained in the strains isolated from the xerophilous meadow (10-18 granules/cell), which was the most stressful environment from all the studied sites, as the physicochemical and microbiological tests proved.
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 | 0.001 | 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".