Insights into thermoadaptation and the evolution of mesophily from the bacterial phylum <i>Thermotogae</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thermophiles are extremophiles that grow optimally at temperatures >45 °C. To survive and maintain function of their biological molecules, they have a suite of characteristics not found in organisms that grow at moderate temperature (mesophiles). At the cellular level, thermophiles have mechanisms for maintaining their membranes, nucleic acids, and other cellular structures. At the protein level, each of their proteins remains stable and retains activity at temperatures that would denature their mesophilic homologs. Conversely, cellular structures and proteins from thermophiles may not function optimally at moderate temperatures. These differences between thermophiles and mesophiles presumably present a barrier for evolutionary transitioning between the 2 lifestyles. Therefore, studying closely related thermophiles and mesophiles can help us determine how such lifestyle transitions may happen. The bacterial phylum Thermotogae contains hyperthermophiles, thermophiles, mesophiles, and organisms with temperature ranges wide enough to span both thermophilic and mesophilic temperatures. Genomic, proteomic, and physiological differences noted between other bacterial thermophiles and mesophiles are evident within the Thermotogae. We argue that the Thermotogae is an ideal group of organisms for understanding of the response to fluctuating temperature and of long-term evolutionary adaptation to a different growth temperature range.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".