Denitrification‐Driven Transcription and Enzyme Production at the River‐Groundwater Interface: Insights From Reactive‐Transport Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Molecular‐biological data and omics tools have increasingly been used to characterize microorganisms responsible for the turnover of reactive compounds in the environment, such as reactive‐nitrogen species in groundwater. While transcripts of functional genes and enzymes are used as measures of microbial activity, it is not yet clear how they are quantitatively related to actual turnover rates under variable environmental conditions. As an example application, we consider the interface between rivers and groundwater which has been identified as a key driver for the turnover of reactive‐nitrogen compounds, that cause eutrophication of rivers and endanger drinking water production from groundwater. In the absence of measured data, we developed a reactive‐transport model for denitrification that simultaneously predicts the distributions of functional‐gene transcripts, enzymes, and reaction rates. Applying the model, we evaluate the response of transcripts and enzymes at the river‐groundwater interface to stable and dynamic hydrogeochemical regimes. While functional‐gene transcripts respond to short‐term (diurnal) fluctuations of substrate availability and oxygen concentrations, enzyme concentrations are stable over such time scales. The presence of functional‐gene transcripts and enzymes globally coincides with the zones of active denitrification. However, transcript and enzyme concentrations do not directly translate into denitrification rates in a quantitative way because of nonlinear effects and hysteresis caused by variable substrate availability and oxygen inhibition. Based on our simulations, we suggest that molecular‐biological data should be combined with aqueous geochemical data, which can typically be obtained at higher spatial and temporal resolution, to parameterize and calibrate reactive‐transport models.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".