Sulfur Cycling as a Viable Metabolism under Simulated Noachian/Hesperian Chemistries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Water present on the surface of early Mars (>3.0 Ga) may have been habitable. Characterising analogue environments and investigating the aspects of their microbiome best suited for growth under simulated martian chemical conditions is key to understanding potential habitability. Experiments were conducted to investigate the viability of microbes from a Mars analogue environment, Colour Peak Springs (Axel Heiberg Island, Canadian High Arctic), under simulated martian chemistries. The fluid was designed to emulate waters thought to be typical of the late Noachian, in combination with regolith simulant material based on two distinct martian geologies. These experiments were performed with a microbial community from Colour Peak Springs sediment. The impact on the microbes was assessed by cell counting and 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. Changes in fluid chemistries were tested using ICP-OES. Both chemistries were shown to be habitable, with growth in both chemistries. Microbial communities exhibited distinct growth dynamics and taxonomic composition, comprised of sulfur-cycling bacteria, represented by either sulfate-reducing or sulfur-oxidising bacteria, and additional heterotrophic halophiles. Our data support the identification of Colour Peak Springs as an analogue for former martian environments, with a specific subsection of the biota able to survive under more accurate proxies for martian chemistries.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".