Rhizobitoxine production and symbiotic compatibility of <i>Bradyrhizobium</i> from Asian and North American lineages of <i>Amphicarpaea</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reciprocal inoculations with Bradyrhizobium sp. isolates from the North American legume Amphicarpaea bracteata (L.) Fern. (Phaseoleae-Glycininae) and from a Japanese population of its close relative Amphicarpaea edgeworthii (Benth.) var. japonica were performed to analyze relative symbiotic compatibility. Amphicarpaea edgeworthii plants formed few or no nodules with any North American bradyrhizobial strains isolated from A. bracteata, but all A. bracteata lineages formed effective nitrogen-fixing nodules with Japanese Bradyrhizobium isolates from A. edgeworthii. However, one group of A. bracteata plants (lineage Ia) when inoculated with Japanese bradyrhizobia developed a striking leaf chlorosis similar to that known to be caused by rhizobitoxine. The beta-cystathionase inhibition assay demonstrated that significant amounts of rhizobitoxine were present in nodules formed by these Japanese bradyrhizobia. No North American bradyrhizobial isolate from A. bracteata induced chlorosis on any plants, and the beta-cystathionase assay failed to detect rhizobitoxine in nodules formed by these isolates. The role of rhizobitoxine in A. edgeworthii nodulation development was tested by inoculating plants with a Bradyrhizobium elkanii rhizobitoxine-producing strain, USDA 61, and two mutant derivatives, RX17E and RX18E, which are unable to synthesize rhizobitoxine. Amphicarpaea edgeworthii inoculated with wild-type USDA 61 developed >150 nodules per plant, while plants inoculated with RX17E and RX18E developed fewer than 10 nodules per plant. Thus, efficient nodule development in A. edgeworthii appears to be highly dependent on rhizobitoxine production by Bradyrhizobium strains.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".