MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2532372041 · doi:10.1002/lom3.10145

A fluorescence‐activated cell sorting subsystem for the Imaging FlowCytobot

2016· article· en· W2532372041 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bennett Lambert, Robert Olson, Heidi M. Sosik

Bibliographic record

VenueLimnology and Oceanography Methods · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWoods Hole Oceanographic InstitutionNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCell sortingSortingPlanktonFluorescence-lifetime imaging microscopyMicrofluidicsBiological systemFluorescenceFlow cytometryBiologyEcologyComputer scienceNanotechnologyPhysicsOpticsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent advances in plankton ecology have brought to light the importance of variability within populations and have suggested that cell‐to‐cell differences may influence ecosystem‐level processes such as species succession and bloom dynamics. Flow cytometric cell sorting has been used to capture individual plankton cells from natural water samples to investigate variability at the single cell level, but the crude taxonomic resolution afforded by the fluorescence and light scattering measurements of conventional flow cytometers necessitates sorting and analyzing many cells that may not be of interest. Addition of imaging to flow cytometry improves classification capability considerably: Imaging FlowCytobot, which has been deployed at the Martha's Vineyard Coastal Observatory since 2006, allows classification of many kinds of nano‐ and microplankton to the genus or even species level. We present in this paper a modified bench‐top Imaging FlowCytobot (IFCB‐Sorter) with the capability to sort both single cells and colonies of phytoplankton and microzooplankton from seawater samples. The cells (or subsets selected based on their images) can then be cultured for further manipulation or processed for analyses such as nucleic acid sequencing. The sorting is carried out in two steps: a fluorescence signal triggers imaging and diversion of the sample flow into a commercially available “catcher tube,” and then a solenoid‐based flow control system isolates each sorted cell along with 20 μ L of fluid.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLimnology and Oceanography MethodsSame topicMicrobial Community Ecology and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207