Quantification of small-scale heterogeneity in aquatic aminopeptidase activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leucine aminopeptidase (LAP) is one of the enzymes involved in the hydrolysis of peptides, and is sometimes used to indicate potential nitrogen limitation in microbes. Small-scale variability has the potential to confound interpretation of underlying patterns in LAP activity in time or space. An automated flow-injection analysis instrument was used to address the small-scale variability of LAP activity within contiguous regions of the Hudson River plume (New Jersey, USA). LAP activity had a coefficient of variation (CV) of ca. 0.5 with occasional values above 1.0. The mean CVs for other biological parameters—chlorophyll fluorescence and nitrate concentration—were similar, and were much lower for salinity. LAP activity changed by an average of 35 nmol l-1 h-1 at different salinities, and variations in LAP activity were higher crossing region boundaries than within a region. Differences in LAP activity were ±100 nmol l-1 h-1 between sequential samples spaced <10 m apart. Variogram analysis indicated an inherent spatial variability of 52 nmol l-1 h-1 throughout the study area. Large changes in LAP activity were often associated with small changes in salinity and chlorophyll fluorescence, and were sensitive to the sampling frequency. This study concludes that LAP measurements in a sample could realistically be expected to range from zero to twice the average, and changes between areas or times should be at least 2-fold to have some degree of confidence that apparent patterns (or lack thereof) in activity are real.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".