Rhizobiales as functional and endosymbiontic members in the lichen symbiosis of Lobaria pulmonaria L.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rhizobiales (Alphaproteobacteria) are well-known beneficial partners in plant-microbe interactions. Less is known about the occurrence and function of Rhizobiales in the lichen symbiosis, although it has previously been shown that Alphaproteobacteria are the dominating group in growing lichen thalli. We have analyzed the taxonomic structure and assigned functions to Rhizobiales within a metagenomic dataset of the lung lichen Lobaria pulmonaria L. One third (32.2%) of the overall bacteria belong to the Rhizobiales, in particular to the families Methylobacteriaceae, Bradyrhizobiaceae, and Rhizobiaceae. About 20% of our metagenomic assignments could not be placed in any of the Rhizobiales lineages, which indicates a yet undescribed bacterial diversity. SEED-based functional analysis focused on Rhizobiales and revealed functions supporting the symbiosis, including auxin and vitamin production, nitrogen fixation and stress protection. We also have used a specifically developed probe to localize Rhizobiales by confocal laser scanning microscopy after fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH-CLSM). Bacteria preferentially colonized fungal surfaces, but there is clear evidence that members of the Rhizobiales are able to intrude at varying depths into the interhyphal gelatinous matrix of the upper lichen cortical layer and that at least occasionally some bacteria also are capable to colonize the interior of the fungal hyphae. Interestingly, the gradual development of an endosymbiotic bacterial life was found for lichen- as well as for fungal- and plant-associated bacteria. The new tools to study Rhizobiales, FISH microscopy and comparative metagenomics, suggest a similar beneficial role for lichens than for plants and will help to better understand the Rhizobiales-host interaction and their biotechnological potential.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".