MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091309905 · doi:10.5194/biofilms9-52

Reconstruction of an industry related biofilm into a proxy model community – Challenges around Field and lab based microbial growth analysis

2020· article· en· W3091309905 on OpenAlexaff
Damon C. Brown, Ray W. Turner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCorrosion Behavior and Inhibition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiofilmCorrosionBacterial growthProxy (statistics)BiologyMicroorganismChemistryMicrobiologyBacteriaBiochemistryFood scienceMathematicsGeneticsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the oil and gas industry, internal corrosion represents one of the major threats to asset lifetime and integrity. Of the types of internal corrosion, microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) is the most difficult to predict and monitor due to the unpredictable nature of microbial growth and the minimal metal loss resulting in through wall failure (pitting). MIC results from biofilm communities interacting directly and indirectly with the metal. Due to the structure and nature of these pipelines, directly monitoring sessile growth is impossible. As a result, most MIC monitoring is done through planktonic cells retrieved from fluid samples as a proxy for sessile populations. Growth curves are one of the most fundamental methods of quantitatively assessing microbial growth. In the lab, pure cultures are measured using optical densities, biomass staining, direct microscopic counting and counting colony forming units (CFU) on specialized media while more advanced techniques involve quantitative PCR (qPCR) of key genes. While PCR technologies are more easily transferred from the field to the lab, CFU counts are impossible in the field. Alternatives to the CFU are colorimetric activity assays such as “bug bottles” or biological activity reaction test (BART) bottles but aren’t sensitive and require long incubation times. More sensitive assays such as ATP measurements are also used but can be misleading as high metabolically active samples will give higher cell count equivalents than a metabolically slow community of an identical size. To systematically evaluate a best practice, we conducted growth curves in a lab scenario using six pure cultures and techniques predominantly used in the field to determine how these techniques compare and accurately measure microbial growth. The six species used are Acetobacterium woodii, Bacillus subtilis, Desulfovibrio vulgaris, Geoalkalibacter subterraneus, Pseudomonas putida and Thauera aromatica. The techniques used are optical density at 600 nm, ATP activity measurements using a luciferase-based assay, DNA concentration and 16S rRNA copy numbers. It was found that most lines of data follow the expected sigmoidal growth curve to varying degrees for all species. OD600 readings follow the expected sigmoidal curves, exhibiting a lag phase, log growth phase and a stationary phase. ATP peaks during mid log phase and quickly declines, never showing a distinct stationary phase, while DNA concentrations closely follow the OD600 readings but decline to death phase more rapidly. qPCR of the 16S rRNA genes revealed this data followed the same trends but was less susceptible to fluctuations. Assessing microbial biofilms in the environment and on anthropogenic industrial infrastructure is extremely challenging given sampling, storage and transportation to the lab. This work begins to establish best practices for growth of environmental communities to be followed. Cumulatively, this work shows that each approach supports the expected growth curve. Considerations should be made if all field data is of a single type, e.g. ATP, as it measures activity and not total cell count. Collecting even two lines of evidence in the field will greatly improve the quality of assessment and strengthen any conclusions regarding assessment of microbial growth.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCorrosion Behavior and InhibitionFrench-language works237,207