MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070185264 · doi:10.1139/w04-009

Nitrogen transfer and assimilation between the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus <i>Glomus intraradices</i> Schenck &amp; Smith and Ri T-DNA roots of <i>Daucus carota</i> L. in an in vitro compartmented system

2004· article· en· W2070185264 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jean-Patrick Toussaint, Marc St‐Arnaud, Christiane Charest

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDaucus carotaBiologyGlutamate dehydrogenaseMyceliumMycorrhizaGlutamine synthetaseHyphaGlomusBotanyFungusGlomeromycotaPhycomycetesGlutamate synthaseNitrogen assimilationSymbiosisGlutamineBiochemistryEnzymeGlutamate receptorHorticultureBacteriaAmino acidSpore

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nitrogen metabolism was examined in monoxenic cultures of carrot roots (Daucus carota L.) colonized with the arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungus Glomus intraradices Schenck & Smith. Glutamine synthetase and glutamate dehydrogenase activities were significantly increased in mycorrhizal roots for which only the extraradical mycelium had exclusive access to NH4NO3 in a distinct hyphal compartment inaccessible to the roots. This was in comparison with the water controls but was similar to the enzyme activities of non-arbuscular-mycorrhizal (non-AM) roots that had direct access to NH4NO3. In addition, glutamate dehydrogenase activity was significantly enhanced in AM roots compared with non-AM roots. Carrot roots took up 15NH4+ more efficiently than 15NO3-, and the extraradical hyphae transfered 15NH4+ to host roots from the hyphal compartment but did not transfer 15NO3-. The extraradical mycelium was shown, for the first time, to have a different glutamine synthetase monomer than roots. Our overall results highlight the active role of AM fungi in nitrogen uptake, transfer, and assimilation in their symbiotic root association.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations130
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207