A primary assessment of the endophytic bacterial community in a xerophilous moss (Grimmia montana) using molecular method and cultivated isolates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investigating the endophytic bacterial community in special moss species is fundamental to understanding the microbial-plant interactions and discovering the bacteria with stresses tolerance. Thus, the community structure of endophytic bacteria in the xerophilous moss Grimmia montana were estimated using a 16S rDNA library and traditional cultivation methods. In total, 212 sequences derived from the 16S rDNA library were used to assess the bacterial diversity. Sequence alignment showed that the endophytes were assigned to 54 genera in 4 phyla (Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria and Cytophaga/Flexibacter/Bacteroids). Of them, the dominant phyla were Proteobacteria (45.9%) and Firmicutes (27.6%), the most abundant genera included Acinetobacter, Aeromonas, Enterobacter, Leclercia, Microvirga, Pseudomonas, Rhizobium, Planococcus, Paenisporosarcina and Planomicrobium. In addition, a total of 14 species belonging to 8 genera in 3 phyla (Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria) were isolated, Curtobacterium, Massilia, Pseudomonas and Sphingomonas were the dominant genera. Although some of the genera isolated were inconsistent with those detected by molecular method, both of two methods proved that many different endophytic bacteria coexist in G. montana. According to the potential functional analyses of these bacteria, some species are known to have possible beneficial effects on hosts, but whether this is the case in G. montana needs to be confirmed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".