Exploring structural definitions of mycorrhizas, with emphasis on nutrient-exchange interfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The roots or other subterranean organs of most plants develop symbioses, mycorrhizas, with fungal symbionts. Historically, mycorrhizas have been placed into seven categories based primarily on structural characteristics. A new category has been proposed for symbiotic associations of some leafy liverworts. An important feature of mycorrhizas is the interface involved in nutrient exchange between the symbionts. With the exception of ectomycorrhizas, in which fungal hyphae remain external to plant cell walls, all mycorrhizas are characterized by fungal hyphae breaching cell walls but remaining separated from the cell cytoplasm by a plant-derived membrane and an interfacial matrix that forms an apoplastic compartment. The chemical composition of the interfacial matrix varies in complexity. In arbuscular mycorrhizas (both Arum-type and Paris-type), molecules typical of plant primary cell walls (i.e., cellulose, pectins, β-1,3-glucans, hydroxyproline-rich glycoproteins) are present. In ericoid mycorrhizas, only rhamnogalacturonans occur in the interfacial matrix surrounding intracellular hyphal complexes. The matrix around intracellular hyphal complexes in orchid mycorrhizas lacks plant cell wall compounds until hyphae begin to senesce, then molecules similar to those found in primary cell walls are deposited. The interfacial matrix has not been studied in arbutoid mycorrhizas and ectendomycorrhizas. In ectomycorrhizas, the apoplastic interface consists of plant cell wall and fungal cell wall; alterations in these may enhance nutrient transfer. In all mycorrhizas, nutrients must pass into the symplast of both partners at some point, and therefore current research is exploring the nature of the opposing membranes, particularly in relation to phosphorus and sugar transporters.Key words: interface, apoplastic compartment, Hartig net, arbuscule, intracellular complex, nutrient exchange.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".