Comparison of rhizobia that nodulate Medicago laciniata and Medicago truncatula present in a single Tunisian arid soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rhizobia present in a single arid region Tunisian soil that nodulate Medicago laciniata and Medicago truncatula were compared. All isolates, 40 from each host, were Sinorhizobium meliloti based on 16S rRNA polymerase chain reaction restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) patterns and subsequent confirmation by sequence analysis of the 16S rRNA genes in four representatives from each host species. There was no apparent relationship between Medicago host species of isolation and the nodulating rhizobial genome as determined by repetitive extragenic palandromic PCR. The isolates of M. laciniata were distinguished from those of M. truncatula present in the same soil by variation in PCR-RFLP of nifDK, indicating that this dissimilarity is originally genetic and not geographic. While forming effective symbioses with their own respective isolates, both M. laciniata and M. truncatula formed ineffective true nodules, nodule-like structures, or no nodules at all in cross-inoculation tests, as confirmed by the histological observations.
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 | 0.001 | 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".