MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607503567 · doi:10.1021/acs.estlett.7b00076

Algal DNA Repair Kinetics Support Culture-Based Enumeration for Validation of Ultraviolet Disinfection Ballast Water Treatment Systems

2017· article· en· W2607503567 on OpenAlexaff
Natalie M. Hull, Mythili R. Isola, Brian Petri, Po-Shun Chan, Karl G. Linden

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Ecology and Invasive Species
Canadian institutionsTrojan Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTetraselmis suecicaDNA repairBallastKineticsDNAUltraviolet lightDNA damageEnumerationUltravioletChemistryBiologyBiochemistryBotanyAlgaeMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To mitigate the potential spread of invasive species and pathogens, the International Maritime Organization and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) adopted discharge performance standards for ballast water management that will take full effect in 2017. The USCG requires staining methods for enumerating ballast water treatment system (BWTS) efficacy. These stains do not detect DNA damage, the primary mechanism for ultraviolet (UV) disinfection, and neglect potential DNA repair after discharge. These factors necessitate investigation of enumeration methods for accurate validation and approval of UV-based BWTSs. To molecularly assess DNA damage and repair kinetics, UV-induced DNA lesions were quantified by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in Tetraselmis suecica control and UV-treated samples that were cultured and tested over time. Most DNA repair occurred within 6 h, was essentially complete within 24 h, and was insensitive to light or nutrient conditions during incubation. Asymptotic repair kinetics indicated a maximum of 67% of DNA damage inflicted by 300 mJ/cm 2 was repairable. These data provide a novel UV dose response for DNA damage in T. suecica and indicate that enzymatic DNA repair kinetics are not affected by culture conditions. Because DNA is rapidly photorepaired, culture-based enumeration can be used to accurately validate UV BWTSs.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations25
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & Technology LettersSame topicMarine Ecology and Invasive SpeciesFrench-language works237,207