A plant growth-promoting pseudomonad is closely related to the<i>Pseudomonas syringae</i>complex of plant pathogens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pseudomonas putida GR12-2 is well known as a plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium; however, phylogenetic analysis using the 16S rRNA gene and four housekeeping genes indicated that this strain forms a monophyletic group with the Pseudomonas syringae complex, which is composed of several species of plant pathogens. On the basis of these sequence analyses, we suggest that P. putida GR12-2 be redesignated as P. syringae GR12-2. To compare the ecological roles of P. syringae GR12-2 with its close relatives P. syringae pathovar (pv.) tomato DC3000 and P. syringae pv. syringae B728a, we investigated their ability to cause disease and promote plant growth. When introduced on tobacco or tomato leaves, P. syringae GR12-2 was unable to elicit a hypersensitive response or cause disease, which are characteristic responses of P. syringae DC3000 and B728a, nor were type III secretion system genes required for virulence detected in P. syringae GR12-2 by PCR or DNA hybridization. In contrast to P. syringae GR12-2, neither of the phytopathogens was able to promote root growth when inoculated onto canola seeds. Although commensals and nonpathogens have been reported among the strains of the P. syringae complex, P. syringae GR12-2 is a mutualist and a phytostimulator.
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) | 0.001 | 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".