MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2887055793 · doi:10.1139/cjm-2018-0165

Effect of copper sulfate on <i>Bdellovibrio</i> growth and bacteriolytic activity towards gibel carp-pathogenic <i>Aeromonas hydrophila</i>

2018· article· en· W2887055793 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Haipeng Cao, Yibin Yang, Liqun Lu, Xianle Yang, Xiaohui Ai

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAquaculture disease management and microbiota
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBdellovibrioAeromonas hydrophilaMicrobiologyStrain (injury)BiologyCopperLysisCarpSulfateCopper sulfateBacteriaChemistryBiochemistryFish <Actinopterygii>Fishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of bdellovibrios has been regarded as an alternative to control multidrug-resistant pathogens and fish bacteriosis. However, scarce information is available on the potential of bdellovibrios in the presence of copper sulfate, which is an algicide widely used to treat cyanobacterial blooms in aquaculture. In the present study, the effects of copper sulfate at sublethal and lethal levels (0.1 and 1.0 mg·L−1) on Bdellovibrio sp. strain BDF-H16 were evaluated. The growth of Bdellovibrio sp. strain BDF-H16 was significantly promoted by both concentrations of copper sulfate, but less so by the lethal concentration. The bacteriolysis of gibel carp-pathogenic Aeromonas hydrophila by Bdellovibrio sp. strain BDF-H16 was also stimulated by copper sulfate in both solid and liquid media. However, Bdellovibrio sp. strain BDF-H16 with 0.1 mg·L−1 copper sulfate clearly inhibited infection of gibel carps by A. hydrophila better than Bdellovibrio sp. strain BDF-H16 with 1.0 mg·L−1 copper sulfate did.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Microbiology→Same topicAquaculture disease management and microbiota→French-language works237,207→