MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Concurrent selection for microbial suppression of<i>Fusarium graminearum</i>, Fusarium head blight and deoxynivalenol in wheat

2009· article· en· W2049289484 on OpenAlexaff
Jian He, G. J. Boland, Ting Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Microbiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsFusariumMycotoxinBiologyFungi imperfectiVomitoxinAgronomySelection (genetic algorithm)BotanyZearalenone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: Identify biological agents that can both control Fusarium head blight (FHB) and reduce deoxynivalenol (DON) production. METHODS AND RESULTS: Concurrent screening methods were used to progressively select soil and food micro-organisms for the ability to suppress Fusarium graminearum, FHB and DON production. The micro-organisms were assessed using up to five assays including: a co-culture and dual-culture assay, an indirect impedance assay, a wheat floret assay, and two assays assessing DON production. Paenibacillus polymyxa W1-14-3 and C1-8-b gave the greatest inhibition of F. graminearum and reduction of DON production in greenhouse evaluations. Compared to a control treatment, they reduced disease severity by 56.5 and 55.4%, F. graminearum colonization of wheat heads by 58.8 and 62.4%, DON production by 84.8 and 89.4%, and increased 100-kernel weights by 56.6 and 66.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The concurrent selection has resulted in promising antagonists that may possess multiple modes of action, and have the ability to colonize wheat heads in controlled environments. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: A novel concurrent screening method was developed for selection of biocontrol agents for FHB. Two isolates of P. polymyxa were selected and identified. Their potential use as biocontrol agents for FHB is highlighted in this study.

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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations47
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied MicrobiologySame topicMycotoxins in Agriculture and FoodFrench-language works237,207