Intraspecific variability within Karlodinium armiger (Dinophyceae) on a toxicological and metabolomic level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The species Karlodinium armiger occasionally co-occurs with Karlodinium veneficum during harmful algal blooms. The only toxin of this species described so far is karmitoxin, a highly ichthyotoxic compound very similar to the karlotoxins produced by K. veneficum. However, information on K. armiger is limited and based on a single Mediterranean strain (K-0668), with few studies investigating its toxicity. Given the high intraspecific variability known in K. veneficum, it was a significant achievement when two additional strains of K. armiger (MD-D6 and MD-D7) were isolated from the Labrador Sea in 2017, enabling comparative studies within this species. The toxicity of these three strains was assessed using the fish gill cell line RTgill-W1 and the cryptophyte Rhodomonas salina. An untargeted metabolomics approach using high-resolution tandem mass spectrometry, along with a computational workflow, provided insights into the metabolomic differences between the strains. Despite being cultivated under identical conditions, the metabolomic profiles and toxicological properties were distinct, even between MD-D6 and MD-D7, which were isolated from the same water sample. While MD-D7 did not exhibit significant toxicity, MD-D6 showed high toxicity and lytic potential, similar to K-0668. Interestingly, karmitoxin was only detected in K-0668, and neither karlotoxins nor any known analogs were detected in any strain. Within this comprehensive workflow, some molecules were found in MD-D6 that share the same chemical space as karmitoxin, making them interesting targets for further research. In conclusion, this study evaluated the toxicological and metabolic variability in three different strains of K. armiger and identified some putative toxin candidates in MD-D6.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".