DISTRIBUTION OF EPIPHYTIC BACTERIA ON CELLS OF <i>PSEUDO‐NITZSCHIA</i> MULTI‐SERIES IN CULTURE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kaczmarska, I.1, Ehrman, J. M.1, Gaudet, J.1, Léger, C.2 & Bates, S. S.2 1Mount Allison University, Biology Department, Sackville, NB E4L 1G7 Canada; 2Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Gulf Fisheries Centre, P.O. Box 5030, Moncton NB E1C 9B6 Canada Toxicity of the domoic‐acid‐producing pennate diatom Pseudo‐nitzschia multiseries is enhanced by bacterial association. Yet, apart from initial molecular studies nearly a decade ago, the diversity of bacteria in cultures of P. multiseries has not been explored. The goal of this study was to examine the frequency and distribution pattern of epiphytic bacteria growing on cultured cells of P. multiseries. Diatoms were grown in flasks of f/2 medium for 31 days. Every 5‐12 days, 5 one‐mL subsamples were transferred to a filtration apparatus and grown undisturbed for 2 days in order to maintain natural associations between the diatom host and its bacterial epiphytes. The subsamples were then gently prepared for SEM examination. From 15‐40% of the diatom cells had attached bacteria. Most diatom cells carried only 1‐5 bacteria, although some had up to 74 bacteria. Even in late stationary phase, many diatom cells were bacteria‐free. A morphologically diverse bacterial flora was observed attached to the host diatoms, including: 1) stalked bacteria, 2) rod‐shaped bacteria attached by their narrow side, 3) rods attached along their long side, and 4) cocci. Stalked bacteria were most common on the girdle band junctions of the cell. They were also attached to the raphe and striae. Rods resting on their long side were most common on the striae of the valve face. These preliminary results indicate that cultured diatoms co‐exist with a diverse bacterial epiphytic flora, having a specific distribution pattern and frequency. Their effect on domoic acid production has yet to be determined.
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".