MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990388157 · doi:10.1139/b07-122

<i>Ascophyllum</i> and its symbionts. X. Ultrastructure of the interaction between <i>A. nodosum</i> (Phaeophyceae) and <i>Mycophycias ascophylli</i> (Ascomycetes)

2008· article· en· W1990388157 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Haixin Xu, Ron J. Deckert, David J. Garbary

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyHyphaUltrastructureOrganelleCytoplasmVacuoleProtoplasmBotanyCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The symbiosis of a brown alga, Ascophyllum nodosum (L.) Le Jolis and its obligate fungal symbiont, Mycophycias ascophylli (Cotton) Kohlmeyer and Volkmann-Kohlmeyer, was studied using transmission electron microscopy. A high quality of cell preservation was achieved after propane-freezing and freeze substitution; this allowed us to observe the interaction of the symbiosis without extensive artifacts. The fungus was found in the middle portion of cortical-cell walls, and at the edge of medullary cells and air-bladder filaments, but never close to host cell protoplasm. Host cell-wall modification was limited to a short distance around the hyphae. A sheath with electron-dense materials around the fungus was found in the older hyphae, but not in the hyphal tips. A range of hyphal ultrastructure was observed from cells with dense cytoplasm, absent to slight vacuolation and with well-defined organelles, to highly vacuolated cells with little cytoplasm and poorly defined organelles, to senescent cells that were often collapsed with no recognizable organelles. No sign of typical cytological resistance responses was observed in host cells, thus confirming the nonantagonistic nature of the two symbionts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations32
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207