Mechanism of oxidation of inorganic sulfur compounds by thiosulfate-grown <i>Thiobacillus thiooxidans</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thiobacillus thiooxidans was grown at pH 5 on thiosulfate as an energy source, and the mechanism of oxidation of inorganic sulfur compounds was studied by the effect of inhibitors, stoichiometries of oxygen consumption and sulfur, sulfite, or tetrathionate accumulation, and cytochrome reduction by substrates. Both intact cells and cell-free extracts were used in the study. The results are consistent with the pathway with sulfur and sulfite as the key intermediates. Thiosulfate was oxidized after cleavage to sulfur and sulfite as intermediates at pH 5, the optimal growth pH on thiosulfate, but after initial condensation to tetrathionate at pH 2.3 where the organism failed to grow. N-Ethylmaleimide (NEM) inhibited sulfur oxidation directly and the oxidation of thiosulfate or tetrathionate indirectly. It did not inhibit the sulfite oxidation by cells, but inhibited any reduction of cell cytochromes by sulfur, thiosulfate, tetrathionate, and sulfite. NEM probably binds sulfhydryl groups, which are possibly essential in supplying electrons to initiate sulfur oxidation. 2-Heptyl-4-hydroxy-quinoline N-oxide (HQNO) inhibited the oxidation of sulfite directly and that of sulfur, thiosulfate, and tetrathionate indirectly. Uncouplers, carbonyl cyanide-m-chlorophenylhydrazone (CCCP) and 2,4-dinitrophenol (DNP), inhibited sulfite oxidation by cells, but not the oxidation by extracts, while HQNO inhibited both. It is proposed that HQNO inhibits the oxidation of sulfite at the cytochrome b site both in cells and extracts, but uncouplers inhibit the oxidation in cells only by collapsing the energized state of cells, ΔµH+, required either for electron transfer from cytochrome c to b or for sulfite binding.Key words: Thiobacillus thiooxidans, thiosulfate, oxidation, sulfite.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".