Potential for Misidentification of a Spore-Forming <i>Paenibacillus polymyxa</i> Isolate as an Endophyte by Using Culture-Based Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While Paenibacillus polymyxa strain Pw-2 has been identified as an endophyte of lodgepole pine (M. Shishido, B. M. Loeb, and C. P. Chanway, Can. J. Microbiol. 41:707-713, 1995), P. polymyxa strain L6 has not, a distinction that could be explained by the differential abilities of these isolates to form spores, rather than the differential abilities to colonize the interior tissues of lodgepole pine. Chemical disinfection was used to destroy bacteria on the root exterior, but bacterial endospores are known for their ability to withstand chemical disinfection, and strain Pw-2 was found to produce 300 to 11,000 times more germinating endospores than strain L6 under the experimental conditions used by Shishido et al. (Can. J. Microbiol. 41:707-713, 1995). Attempts to identify strain Pw-2 within lodgepole pine root tissues by using confocal microscopy techniques failed. We discuss the possibility that spore-forming bacteria can be mistakenly identified as endophytes when culture-based methods alone are used.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".