Evaluation of foliar fungal endophyte incidence in field-grown transgenic<i>Bt</i>white spruce trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 770 transgenic Bt white spruce needles were collected and plated on potato dextrose agar to determine their foliar endophyte diversity. The ribosomal internal transcribed spacer regions for 310 foliar endophytes were amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and digested using CfoI and MspI, which created 21 restriction groups. Isolates from each restriction group were sequenced and compared with reference sequences in GenBank. Eighteen sequence groups were obtained, of which five were identified at the species level. The most common endophytic fungi identified by PCR-RFLP was Lophodermium piceae (incidence of 74.5%). The second and third most common ones were Hypoxylon fragiforme (3.63%) and Lophodermium nitens (3.18%). A statistical analysis performed on the most common endophyte groups showed no statistical difference in endophyte frequency or distribution between the control white spruce needles (nontransgenic) and saplings with constructs containing the reporter gene GUS or the Bt Cry1A(b) gene and kanamycin.
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 | 0.001 | 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".