MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043098254 · doi:10.1139/w05-143

Fungal endophyte assemblages from ethnopharmaceutically important medicinal trees

2006· article· en· W2043098254 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mysore V. Tejesvi, Basavanna Mahesh, Monnanda Somaiah Nalini, H. S. Prakash, K. Ramachandra Kini, Ven Subbiah, Hunthrike Shekar Shetty

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyTerminalia arjunaPlant use of endophytic fungi in defenseBotanyBark (sound)EndophyteTerminalia chebulaTerminaliaSpecies richnessAzadirachtaTraditional medicineEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endophytic fungi represent an interesting group of microorganisms associated with the healthy tissues of terrestrial plants. They represent a large reservoir of genetic diversity. Fungal endophytes were isolated from the inner bark segments of ethnopharmaceutically important medicinal tree species, namely Terminalia arjuna, Crataeva magna, Azadirachta indica, Holarrhena antidysenterica, Terminalia chebula, and Butea monosperma (11 individual trees), growing in different regions of southern India. Forty-eight fungal species were recovered from 2200 bark segments. Mitosporic fungi represented a major group (61%), with ascomycetes (21%) and sterile mycelia (18%) the next major groups. Species of Fusarium, Pestalotiopsis, Myrothecium, Trichoderma, Verticillium, and Chaetomium were frequently isolated. Exclusive fungal taxa were recovered from five of the six plant species considered for the study of endophytic fungi. Rarefaction indices for species richness indicated the highest expected number of species for bark segments were isolated from T. arjuna and A. indica (20 species each) and from C. magna (18 species).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations57
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207