MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127351426 · doi:10.3390/microorganisms9020298

Massive Integration of Planktonic Cells within a Developing Biofilm

2021· article· en· W3127351426 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nay El-Khoury, Imène Bennaceur, Émilie Verplaetse, Stéphane Aymerich, Didier Lereclus, Mireille Kallassy, Michel Gohar

Bibliographic record

VenueMicroorganisms · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial biofilms and quorum sensing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgence Universitaire de la Francophonie
KeywordsBiofilmPopulationmCherryPlanktonBiologyMicrobiologyBacteriaChemistryEcologyGreen fluorescent proteinBiochemistryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During biofilm growth, the coexistence of planktonic and sessile cells can lead to dynamic exchanges between the two populations. We have monitored the fate of these populations in glass tube assays, where the Bacillus thuringiensis 407 strain produces a floating pellicle. Time-lapse spectrophotometric measurement methods revealed that the planktonic population grew until the pellicle started to be produced. Thereafter, the planktonic population decreased rapidly down to a value close to zero while the biofilm was in continuous growth, showing no dispersal until 120 h of culture. We found that this decrease was induced by the presence of the pellicle, but did not occur when oxygen availability was limited, suggesting that it was independent of cell death or cell sedimentation and that the entire planktonic population has integrated the biofilm. To follow the distribution of recruited planktonic cells within the pellicle, we tagged planktonic cells with GFP and sessile cells with mCherry. Fluorescence binocular microscopy observations revealed that planktonic cells, injected through a 24-h-aged pellicle, were found only in specific areas of the biofilm, where the density of sessile cells was low, showing that spatial heterogeneity can occur between recruited cells and sessile cells in a monospecies biofilm.

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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.221
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicroorganismsSame topicBacterial biofilms and quorum sensingFrench-language works237,207