Chemotactic response of <i>Vibrio coralliilyticus</i> to mucus from various coral species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vibrio coralliilyticus, a prominent pathogenic bacteria, is known to cause tissue damage in the coral Pocillopora damicornis and is attracted towards the coral via chemotaxis. However, the potential of V. coralliilyticus to infect most of the other coral hosts via chemotaxis is unknown. In this study, we used capillary assays to quantify the chemotactic response of V. coralliilyticus to the mucus of four tank-cultivated coral species (Cataphyllia jardine, Mussidae sp., Nemenzophyllia turbida, and Euphyllia ancora), and mucus from three wild coral species (Acropora sp., Porites sp., and Montipora sp.). The bacteria showed a positive chemotactic response to each coral mucus tested, with the highest response recorded to the mucus of Acropora sp. and the lowest response to the mucus of Montipora sp. A microfluidic chip was then used to assess the chemotactic preference of V. coralliilyticus to the mucus of the tank cultivated corals. Here too, the bacterium showed positive response, but with a slightly different ranking order. The strong chemotactic response of V. coralliilyticus towards the mucus tested could indicate a broader host range of V. coralliilyticus, and by extension, indicate a threat to weakened coral reefs worldwide.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".