<i>In silico </i>analysis of cysteine content, in six genes, across three marine <i>Altererythrobacter </i>strains sampled at varying barometric pressures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marine microbes experience varying degrees of barometric pressure depending on the depth at which they reside. High barometric pressure can create an extreme environment which favors the survival of barophilic and barotolerant bacteria. This paper aims to quantify the cysteine content in six genes across three marine Altererythrobacter strains that were sampled from varying depth, thus living under corresponding degrees of barometric pressure. The purpose of this study is to test whether marine Altererythrobacter strains, living at greater depths, have proportionally more cysteine content, which could improve protein stability under high pressures. It was hypothesized that organisms sampled at greater depths would exhibit higher amounts of cysteine in their proteins as a mechanism to cope with the increased barometric pressure. This hypothesis was tested by selecting three open source genomes, from three marine Altererythrobacter species, which were sampled at different depths. Strains sampled from different depths were found to have similar proportions of cysteine. This study was only intended as a preliminary investigation and in order for the hypothesis to be thoroughly supported or rejected a more comprehensive study would be needed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".