Survival of extremely and moderately halophilic isolates of Tunisian solar salterns after UV-B or oxidative stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adaptation to a solar saltern environment requires mechanisms providing tolerance not only to salinity but also to UV radiation (UVR) and to reactive oxygen species (ROS). We cultivated prokaryote halophiles from two different salinity ponds: the concentrator M1 pond (240 g·L(-1) NaCl) and the crystallizer TS pond (380 g·L(-1) NaCl). We then estimated UV-B and hydrogen peroxide resistance according to the optimal salt concentration for growth of the isolates. We observed a higher biodiversity of bacterial isolates in M1 than in TS. All strains isolated from TS appeared to be extremely halophilic Archaea from the genus Halorubrum. Culturable strains isolated from M1 included extremely halophilic Archaea (genera Haloferax, Halobacterium, Haloterrigena, and Halorubrum) and moderately halophilic Bacteria (genera Halovibrio and Salicola). We also found that archaeal strains were more resistant than bacterial strains to exposure to ROS and UV-B. All organisms tested were more resistant to UV-B exposure at the optimum NaCl concentration for their growth, which is not always the case for H(2)O(2). Finally, if these results are extended to other prokaryotes present in a solar saltern, we could speculate that UVR has greater impact than ROS on the control of prokaryote biodiversity in a solar saltern.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".