MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321632109 · doi:10.1139/w11-097

Glucose and plant exudate enhanced enumeration of bacteria capable of degrading polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

2011· article· en· W2321632109 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John C. Thomas, Robert T. Dabkowski

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicrobial bioremediation and biosurfactants
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnumerationExudatePolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonMicroorganismPseudomonas putidaBacteriaBiodegradationPseudomonasChemistryRhizosphereMicrobial biodegradationHydrocarbonEnvironmental chemistryDegradation (telecommunications)MicrobiologyBiologyOrganic chemistryBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Enumerating environmental microbial isolates capable of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) degradation can provide insight into the microbe-plant interactions that facilitate PAH removal. We examined a known PAH degrader ( Pseudomonas putida G7), a nondegrader ( Agrobacterium tumefaciens LBA4404), and several microorganisms isolated from the environment by using a PAH cocktail in an enumeration medium with or without 0.025% (m/v) glucose and (or) root exudates. Compared with the standard most probable number (MPN), the addition of glucose and root exudates in a modified MPN method resulted in a 3- to 11-fold enhancement of PAH degraders being enumerated among microorganisms found in PAH-contaminated soils. High-performance liquid chromatography analysis verified that PAH levels were reduced using this modified enumeration method. Low levels of glucose, perhaps in concert with other materials in exudates, may promote microbial metabolism, thereby enhancing PAH degradation.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicMicrobial bioremediation and biosurfactantsFrench-language works237,207