MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967579256 · doi:10.7717/peerj.7497

Dynamics of a methanol-fed marine denitrifying biofilm: 1-Impact of environmental changes on the denitrification and the co-occurrence of <i>Methylophaga nitratireducenticrescens</i> and <i>Hyphomicrobium nitrativorans</i>

2019· article· en· W2967579256 on OpenAlexafffund
Geneviève Payette, Valérie Geoffroy, Christine Martineau, Richard Villemur

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Canadian institutionsLallemand (Canada)Laurentian UniversityInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDenitrifying bacteriaBiofilmDenitrificationEffluentSeawaterNitrateChemistryMethanolEnvironmental chemistryAnoxic watersNitriteArtificial seawaterMicroorganismMicrobiologyBacteriaFood scienceBiologyEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental scienceEcologyNitrogenOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The biofilm of a methanol-fed denitrification system that treated a marine effluent is composed of multi-species microorganisms, among which Hyphomicrobium nitrativorans strain NL23 and Methylophaga nitratireducenticrescens strain JAM1 are the principal bacteria involved in the denitrifying activities. Here, we report the capacity of the denitrifying biofilm to sustain environmental changes, and the impact of these changes on the co-occurrence of H. nitrativorans and M. nitratireducenticrescens . Methods In a first set of assays, the original biofilm (OB) was cultivated in an artificial seawater (ASW) medium under anoxic conditions to colonize new carriers. The new formed biofilm was then subjected to short exposures (1–5 days) of a range of NaCl, methanol, nitrate (NO 3 − ) and nitrite (NO 2 − ) concentrations, and to different pHs and temperatures. In a second set of assays, the OB was cultivated in ASW medium for five weeks with (i) a range of NaCl concentrations, (ii) four combinations of NO 3 − /methanol concentrations and temperatures, (iii) NO 2 − , and (iv) under oxic conditions. Finally, the OB was cultivated for five weeks in the commercial Instant Ocean (IO) seawater. The growth of the biofilm and the dynamics of NO 3 − and NO 2 − were determined. The levels of M. nitratireducenticrescens and H. nitrativorans were measured by qPCR. Results In the first set of assays, the biofilm cultures had the capacity to sustain denitrifying activities in most of the tested conditions. Inhibition occurred when they were exposed to high pH (10) or to high methanol concentration (1.5%). In the second set of assays, the highest specific denitrification rates occurred with the biofilm cultures cultivated at 64.3 mM NO 3 − and 0.45% methanol, and at 30 °C. Poor biofilm development occurred with the biofilm cultures cultivated at 5% and 8% NaCl. In all biofilm cultures cultivated in ASW at 2.75% NaCl, H. nitrativorans strain NL23 decreased by three orders of magnitude in concentrations compared to that found in OB. This decrease coincided with the increase of the same magnitude of a subpopulation of M. nitratireducenticrescens (strain GP59 as representative). In the biofilm cultures cultivated at low NaCl concentrations (0% to 1.0%), persistence of H. nitrativorans strain NL23 was observed, with the gradual increase in concentrations of M. nitratireducenticrescens strain GP59. High levels of H. nitrativorans strain NL23 were found in the IO biofilm cultures. The concentrations of M. nitratireducenticrescens strain JAM1 were lower in most of the biofilms cultures than in OB. Conclusions These results demonstrate the plasticity of the marine methylotrophic denitrifying biofilm in adapting to different environmental changes. The NaCl concentration is a crucial factor in the dynamics of H. nitrativorans strain NL23, for which growth was impaired above 1% NaCl in the ASW-based biofilm cultures in favor of M. nitratireducenticrescens strain GP59.

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)0.000
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen RemovalFrench-language works237,207