MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067447719 · doi:10.1139/w99-143

Plant growth-promoting bacteria that decrease heavy metal toxicity in plants

2000· article· en· W2067447719 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Genrich I. Burd, D. George Dixon, Bernard R. Glick

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Stress Responses and Tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsSiderophoreBacteriaBiologyShootBrassicaCanolaZincMetal toxicityChlorophyllBotanyMicroorganismPlant growthHorticultureFood scienceHeavy metalsChemistryEnvironmental chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kluyvera ascorbata SUD165 and a siderophore-overproducing mutant of this bacterium, K. ascorbata SUD165/26, were used to inoculate tomato, canola, and Indian mustard seeds which were then grown in soil for 25-42 days in the presence of either nickel, lead, or zinc. The parameters that were monitored included plant wet and dry weight, protein and chlorophyll content in the plant leaves, and concentration of heavy metal in the plant roots and shoots. As indicated by a decrease in the measured values of these parameters, in all instances, plant growth was inhibited by the presence of the added metal. Both bacterial strains were effective, although not always to a statistically significant extent, at relieving a portion of the growth inhibition caused by the metals. In most cases, the siderophore overproducing mutant K. ascorbata 165/26 exerted a more pronounced effect on plant growth than did the wild-type bacterium K. ascorbata SUD165. The data suggest that the ability of these bacteria to protect plants against the inhibitory effects of high concentrations of nickel, lead, and zinc is related to the bacteria providing the plants with sufficient iron.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations880
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicPlant Stress Responses and ToleranceFrench-language works237,207