MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Terrestrial iron biosignatures and their potential in solar system exploration for astrobiology

2025· article· en· W4415769274 on OpenAlexaff
Laura I. Tenelanda-Osorio, Andreas Kappler, Muammar Mansor

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth-Science Reviews · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsInnovation Cluster (Canada)
FundersEberhard Karls Universität TübingenDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsSolar SystemAsteroidAtmosphere (unit)PlanetTerrestrial planet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Iron (Fe) is one of the most abundant elements in the solar system. It plays an important role in life by participating in redox reactions for energy generation (e.g. , by Fe(II)-oxidizing and Fe(III)-reducing microorganisms) and as a cofactor in multiple assimilatory metabolisms (e.g. , DNA replication). Fe-metabolizing microorganisms are ubiquitous on Earth, from soils and sediments to deep-sea hydrothermal vents. They catalyze Fe redox transformations between its most common redox species Fe(II) and Fe(III), and couple this to carbon degradation, CO 2 fixation, nitrate reduction and photosynthesis, thus linking the biogeochemical cycles of Fe with carbon and nitrogen. Biogenic Fe (oxyhydr)oxide minerals (BIOS), i.e. the products of neutrophilic Fe(II)-oxidizing microorganisms, are biosignatures of interest on Earth and potentially on other habitable bodies in our solar system, such as Mars and icy moons. Here, we review the habitats, mechanisms, products and preservation of Fe-metabolizing microorganisms on Earth. We translate this knowledge into a biosignature context for the search of potential Fe-metabolizing microorganisms in the solar system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth-Science ReviewsSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207