Common Duckweed (Lemna minor) Is a Versatile High-Throughput Infection Model For the Burkholderia cepacia Complex and Other Pathogenic Bacteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Members of the Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc) have emerged in recent decades as problematic pulmonary pathogens of cystic fibrosis (CF) patients, with severe infections progressing to acute necrotizing pneumonia and sepsis. This study presents evidence that Lemna minor (Common duckweed) is useful as a plant model for the Bcc infectious process, and has potential as a model system for bacterial pathogenesis in general. To investigate the relationship between Bcc virulence in duckweed and Galleria mellonella (Greater wax moth) larvae, a previously established Bcc infection model, a duckweed survival assay was developed and used to determine LD50 values. A strong correlation (R(2) = 0.81) was found between the strains' virulence ranks in the two infection models, suggesting conserved pathways in these vastly different hosts. To broaden the application of the duckweed model, enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (EPEC) and five isogenic mutants with previously established LD50 values in the larval model were tested against duckweed, and a strong correlation (R(2) = 0.93) was found between their raw LD50 values. Potential virulence factors in B. cenocepacia K56-2 were identified using a high-throughput screen against single duckweed plants. In addition to the previously characterized antifungal compound (AFC) cluster genes, several uncharacterized genes were discovered including a novel lysR regulator, a histidine biosynthesis gene hisG, and a gene located near the gene encoding the recently characterized virulence factor SuhB(Bc). Finally, to demonstrate the utility of this model in therapeutic applications, duckweed was rescued from Bcc infection by treating with bacteriophage at 6-h intervals. It was observed that phage application became ineffective at a timepoint that coincided with a sharp increase in bacterial invasion of plant tissue. These results indicate that common duckweed can serve as an effective infection model for the investigation of bacterial virulence factors and therapeutic strategies to combat them.
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".