The use of the green fluorescent protein as a biomarker for sapstain fungi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To understand wood colonization by sapstain fungi and their potential biocontrol agents, it is necessary to differentiate these organisms directly on their natural substrates. In the present study the feasibility of transforming with the green fluorescent protein (GFP), the sapstain fungus Ophiostoma piceae and a potential biocontrol agent Cartapip®, an Ophiostoma piliferum albino strain was assessed. Transformants of the two fungal species were screened by polymerase chain reaction and Southern blot analyses. The GFP was expressed in spores, synnemata and mycelia of the transformants grown in artificial media or wood. The growth, pigmentation and wood colonization of the transformants were similar to that of the non‐transformants, suggesting that the presence of the gfp gene had no negative effect on the biology of the transformants. Using fluorescence and confocal microscopy, the GFP‐expressing fungi were easily differentiated from the wild‐type strains and other fungal species in wood, even 4 months after inoculation. The results show that the use of the GFP system is feasible to monitor Ophiostoma fungi in wood.
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".