Screening and Characterization of Luminescent Bacterial Strain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several samples of sea water and sea organisms were collected for the isolation of luminescent bacterial strain. The samples were collected from Clifton, Hawksbay, fisheri at Landhi and Jeti at Korangi, Karachi, Pakistan, the sea organisms such as Crab, Prawn, Fish, Eel, Fish Gut, Electric Fish were collected. Three different media were used for enrichment of samples that is BOSS, Luminescent Agar (LA) and nutrient broth. A total of twenty one different bacterial strains were selected for further studies on the basis of different colonial morphologies. They were designated as DGU101 to DGU116, DGU221-DGU224 and DGU227. These strains were checked for luminescent and tolerance against antibiotics and heavy metal salts. Only one strain isolated from sea water (Clifton beach) designated as DGU227 showed luminescent on Luminescent Agar (LA) medium. It also exhibited multiple metal and antibiotic resistances. The two large plasmids were isolated from DGU227 which were more than 10 kb in size. The luminescence, growth, quorum sensing phenomenon of bioluminescent bacteria is affected by the presence of metal and antibiotics in environment, which act as inducer, and substrate in activating and enhancing these natural activities. Mostly Luminescent was observed after 24 hours of incubation it enhanced while growing in presence of antibiotic Ampicillin. The strain DGU227 was further identified by 16S rRNA gene analysis and exhibited 98% homology with Vibrio chigassi bacterial strain.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".