Evidence that the <i>exoH</i> gene of <i>Sinorhizobium meliloti</i> does not appear to influence symbiotic effectiveness with <i>Medicago truncatula</i> ‘Jemalong A17’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify strains of Sinorhizobium meliloti that formed either an effective or completely ineffective symbiosis with Medicago truncatula L. 'Jemalong A17' and, subsequently, to determine whether differences existed between their exoH genes. Sinorhizobium meliloti TII7 and A5 formed an effective and ineffective symbiosis with M. truncatula 'Jemalong A17', respectively. Using a multilocus sequence typing method, both strains were shown to have chromosomes identical with S. meliloti Rm1021 and RCR2011. The 2260-bp segments of DNA stretching from the 3' end of exoI through open reading frames of hypothetical proteins SM_b20952 and SM_b20953 through exoH into the 5' end of exoK in strains TII7 and Rm1021 differed by a single nucleotide at base 127 of the hypothetical protein SM_b20953. However, the derived amino acid sequences of the exoH genes of effective TII7, ineffective A5, and strain Rm1021 were shown to be identical with each other. Therefore, it would seem unlikely that the gene product of exoH is directly involved with the low efficiency of a symbiosis of strain Rm1021 with M. truncatula 'Jemalong A17'. Complementation or complete genome sequence analyses involving strains TII7 and A5 might be useful approaches to investigate the molecular bases for the differential symbiotic response with M. truncatula 'Jemalong A17'.
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 | 0.000 | 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".