Accumulation patterns of intracellular salts in a new halophilic amoeboflagellate, Euplaesiobystra salpumilio sp. nov., (Heterolobosea; Discoba) under hypersaline conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Halophilic microbial eukaryotes are present in many eukaryotic lineages and major groups; however, our knowledge of their diversity is still limited. Furthermore, almost nothing is known about the intracellular accumulation of salts in most halophilic eukaryotes. Here, we isolate a novel halophilic microbial eukaryote from hypersaline water of 134 practical salinity units (PSU) in a solar saltern. This species is an amoeboflagellate (capable of the amoeba-flagellate-cyst transformation) in the heterolobosean group and belongs to the genus Euplaesiobystra based on morphological data and 18S rDNA sequences. However, the isolate is distinct from any of the described Euplaesiobystra species. Especially, it is the smallest Euplaesiobystra to date, has a distinct cytostome, and grows optimally at 75–100 PSU. Furthermore, the phylogenetic tree of the 18S rDNA sequences demonstrates that the isolate forms a strongly supported group, sister to Euplaesiobystra hypersalinica. Thus, we propose that the isolate, Euplaesiobystra salpumilio, is a novel species. E. salpumilio displays a significantly increased influx of the intracellular Na+ and K+ at 50, 100, and 150 PSU, compared to freshwater species. However, the intracellular retention of the Na+ and K+ at 150 PSU does not significantly differ from 100 PSU, suggesting that E. salpumilio can extrude the Na+ and K+ from cells under high-salinity conditions. Interestingly, actively growing E. salpumilio at 100 and 150 PSU may require more intracellular accumulation of Na+ than the no-growth but-viable state at 50 PSU. It seems that our isolate displays two salt metabolisms depending on the tested salinities. E. salpumilio shows a salt-in strategy for Na+ at lower salinity of 100 PSU, while it displays a salt-out strategy for Na+ at higher salinity of 150 PSU. Our results suggest that the novel halophilic E. salpumilio fundamentally uses a salt-out strategy at higher salinities, and the accumulation patterns of intracellular salts in this species are different from those in other halophilic microbial eukaryotes.
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 | 0.001 | 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".