MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062392469 · doi:10.1139/b06-083

Isolates of endophytic <i>Chaetomium</i> spp. inhibit the fungal pathogen <i>Pyrenophora tritici-repentis</i> in vitro

2006· article· en· W2062392469 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Noor Istifadah, Jennifer A. Saleeba, P. A. McGee

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and fungal interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of New South WalesMultiple Sclerosis Australia
KeywordsPathogenPyrenophoraBiologyMicrobiologyChaetomiumIn vitroPlant use of endophytic fungi in defenseAgarMolecular massBotanyBiochemistryEnzymeBacteriaGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growth of a culturable pathogen, Pyrenophora tritici-repentis (Died.) Drechs., was inhibited by six isolates of endophytic Chaetomium spp. in vitro when grown in apposition. Metabolites of the endophytes, when grown either on agar or in liquid media, also inhibited the pathogen. The culture filtrate of Chaetomium was extracted in 70% ethanol, and the ethanol-soluble fraction that either passed through a molecular sieve of 3000 molecular mass cutoff or was held on 30 000 molecular mass cutoff inhibited the pathogen. The high molecular mass fraction was a protein with one major band at 29 kDa. The electroeluted band delayed the growth of the pathogen in vitro. Inhibition was retained in filtrate stored frozen, as dried residue, and when rehydrated after drying. Autoclaving reduced, whereas proteinase K treatment did not affect, the activity of the proteinaceous fraction. The data support the hypothesis that endophytic Chaetomium produce a range of metabolites that inhibit P. tritici-repentis in vitro and may affect the pathogen when the fungi co-occur in wheat.

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 score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

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 head0.177
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Citations18
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicPlant and fungal interactionsFrench-language works237,207