Assessment of estrogenic potential from exudates of microcystin-producing and non-microcystin-producing Microcystis by metabolomics, machine learning and E-screen assay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cyanobacterial blooms, often dominated by Microcystis aeruginosa, are capable of producing estrogenic effects. It is important to identify specific estrogenic compounds produced by cyanobacteria, though this can prove challenging owing to the complexity of exudate mixtures. In this study, we used untargeted metabolomics to compare components of exudates from microcystin-producing and non-microcystin-producing M. aeruginosa strains that differed with respect to their ability to produce microcystins, and across two growth phases. We identified 416 chemicals and found that the two strains produced similar components, mainly organoheterocyclic compounds (20.2%), organic acids and derivatives (17.3%), phenylpropanoids and polyketides (12.7%), benzenoids (12.0%), lipids and lipid-like molecules (11.5%), and organic oxygen compounds (10.1%). We then predicted estrogenic compounds from this group using random forest machine learning. Six compounds (daidzin, biochanin A, phenylethylamine, rhein, o-Cresol, and arbutin) belonging to phenylpropanoids and polyketides (3), benzenoids (2), and organic oxygen compound (1) were tested and exhibited estrogenic potency based upon the E-screen assay. This study confirmed that both Microcystis strains produce exudates that contain compounds with estrogenic properties, a growing concern in cyanobacteria management.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".