MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412017117 · doi:10.1111/maps.70008

Documenting microbial populations within the University of Alberta Meteorite Curation Facility using <scp>16S rRNA</scp> gene sequencing: Implications for the curation of astromaterials

2025· article· en· W4412017117 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Libby D. Tunney, A. B. Regberg, C. D. K. Herd, R. E. Davis, Christian L. Castro

Bibliographic record

VenueMeteoritics and Planetary Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Space AgencyUniversity of Alberta
Keywords16S ribosomal RNAMeteoriteBiologyGeneDNA sequencingComputational biologyMicrobiologyAstrobiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Meteorites are easily contaminated at the Earth's surface by microbial activity. Here, DNA extracts from two meteorite specimens and samples from curation laboratory surfaces are analyzed with amplicon sequencing, to understand microbial communities that contaminate meteorites and that may be resident in curation facilities. In addition, two different DNA extraction kits, the PowerSoil DNA Isolation Kit and the QIAamp UCP Pathogen Mini Kit, are utilized to determine if certain kits are more favorable for low biomass studies of meteorites. We find that, regardless of the type of kit used, the majority of microbial taxa that dominate meteorite and meteorite curation environments include those that are prevalent in soils or in the human microbiome. Our results have implications for advanced curation methods to protect the intrinsic properties of meteorites, such as extraterrestrial organics and minerals, from microbes. Preserving meteorites in pristine states and understanding the complex relationship between meteorites and terrestrial microbes can inform our search for the origin of life or life elsewhere in the universe.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeteoritics and Planetary ScienceSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207