Extraction of Total Soluble Lipid from Ground Coral Samples v1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This method is adapted and updated from methods originally published in Grottoli et al. (2004) and is based on the original methods of Folch & Stanley (1957), and Bligh & Dyer (1959). There are five parts to extracting lipids from ground corals: 1) grind and sub-sample the coral and store at -80 °C until ready to extract, 2) freeze-dry the sample, 3) extract the lipids from the freeze-dried samples, 4) standardize the lipid concentration to ash-free dry weight (AFDW), and 5) resuspend the extracted lipid for long-term storage and possible later analysis of lipid classes or isotopes. The lipid extraction procedure must be conducted in a fume hood with the sash as low as possible with the researcher wearing protective eyewear, gloves, and lab coat at all times. Important considerations regarding lipid analysis were gained from reading Chapter 1.3 “Lipid extraction, storage, and sample handling” from the textbook Lipid Analysis by Christie (2003). This method was originally developed by Andréa Grottoli and refined by Rowan McLachlan (06-11-18) with the guidance of Dr. Agus Muñoz-Garcia at The Ohio State University. This protocol was written by Rowan McLachlan (03-12-2020). References Bligh, E. G., & Dyer, W. J. (1959). Canadian Journal of Biochemistry and Physiology. Canadian Journal of Biochemistry and Physiology, 37(8), 911–917. Christie, W. W. (2003). Lipid Analysis: Vol. 15, Isolation, Separation, Identification and Structural Analysis of Lipids. Current Opinion Biotechnology (3rd ed., Vol. 4). Oily Press Ltd, UK. Folch, J., Lees, M., & Stanley, G. H. S. (1957). A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipids from animal tissues. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 226, 497-509. Grottoli A. G., Rodrigues L. J., & Juarez C. (2004). Lipids and stable carbon isotopes in two species of Hawaiian corals, Porites compressa and Montipora verrucosa, following a bleaching event. Marine Biology, 145: 621–631.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.047 |
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".