The possible role of trehalose in the mycorrhiza helper bacterium effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of the study was to explore the biological pathway that could explain the stimulating effect of mycorrhiza helper bacteria (MHB) on ectomycorrhizal symbiosis. It has been suggested that the ability of MHBs to stimulate mycelial growth is strongly correlated with their effect on ectomycorrhizal establishment; therefore, the role of organic substrates known to be involved in the hyphosphere and mycorrhizosphere effects of this fungal growth promotion were investigated. Therefore, the bacterial influence on fungal growth was tested using two-compartment dishes. One compartment was filled with a minimal medium (M9 medium) amended with different organic compounds (D-glucosamine, oxalic acid, trehalose, malonic acid, citric acid, carboxy-methyl cellulose, starch, or chitin) and inoculated with a MHB isolate ( Pseudomonas monteilii strain HR13). The other compartment contained fungal plugs of Pisolithus albus isolate IR100. Fungal radial growth was stimulated only when Pseudomonas monteilii was grown on M9 medium + trehalose. This result suggests that trehalose has a role in such bacteria–fungus interactions. However, further research, using other biological models, must be undertaken to identify the role of trehalose in the interactions between MHBs and the fungal symbionts at trophic and genetic levels.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".