<i>Baffinella frigidus</i> gen. et sp. nov. (Baffinellaceae fam. nov., Cryptophyceae) from Baffin Bay: Morphology, pigment profile, phylogeny, and growth rate response to three abiotic factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty years ago an Arctic cryptophyte was isolated from Baffin Bay and given strain number CCMP2045. Here, it was described using morphology, water‐ and non‐water soluble pigments and nuclear‐encoded SSU rDNA. The influence of temperature, salinity, and light intensity on growth rates was also examined. Microscopy revealed typical cryptophyte features but the chloroplast color was either green or red depending on the light intensity provided. Phycoerythrin (Cr‐PE 566) was only produced when cells were grown under low‐light conditions (5 μmol photons · m−2 · s−1). Non‐water‐soluble pigments included chlorophyll a, c2 and five major carotenoids. Cells measured 8.2 × 5.1 μm and a tail‐like appendage gave them a comma‐shape. The nucleus was located posteriorly and a horseshoe‐shaped chloroplast contained a single pyrenoid. Ejectosomes of two sizes and a nucleomorph anterior to the pyrenoid were discerned in TEM. SEM revealed a slightly elevated vestibular plate in the vestibulum. The inner periplast component consisted of slightly overlapping hexagonal plates arranged in 16–20 oblique rows. Antapical plates were smaller and their shape less profound. Temperature and salinity studies revealed CCMP2045 as stenothermal and euryhaline and growth was saturated between 5 and 20 μmol photons · m−2 · s−1. The phylogeny based on SSU rDNA showed that CCMP2045 formed a distinct clade with CCMP2293 and Falcomonas sp. isolated from Spain. Combining pheno‐ and genotypic data, the Arctic cryptophyte could not be placed in an existing family and genus and therefore Baffinellaceae fam. nov. and Baffinella frigidus gen. et sp. nov. were proposed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".