MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2726050567 · doi:10.1139/cjm-2017-0285

<i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i> displays an increased growth rate and an extended replicative lifespan when grown under respiratory conditions in the presence of bacteria

2017· article· en· W2726050567 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paul A. Kirchman, Nicholas Van Zee

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFungal and yeast genetics research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSaccharomyces cerevisiaeYeastBiologyBacteriaMicrobiologyEscherichia coliBiofilmGrowth rateSaccharomycesBacterial growthSiderophoreGrowth mediumBiochemistryGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individual cells of the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae have a limited replicative potential, referred to as the replicative lifespan. We have found that both the growth rate and average replicative lifespan of S. cerevisiae cells are greatly increased in the presence of a variety of bacteria. The growth and lifespan effects are not observable when yeast are allowed to ferment glucose but are only notable on solid media when yeast are forced to respire due to the lack of a fermentable carbon source. Growth near strains of Escherichia coli containing deletions of genes needed for the production of compounds used for quorum sensing or for the production of the siderophore enterobactin also still induced the lifespan extension in yeast. Furthermore, the bacterially induced increases in growth rate and lifespan occur even across gaps in the growth medium, indicating that the bacteria are influencing the yeast through the action of a volatile compound.

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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Microbiology→Same topicFungal and yeast genetics research→French-language works237,207→