MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078879042 · doi:10.1139/w09-056

Plasmid transfer systems in the rhizobia

2009· review· en· W2078879042 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Hao Ding, Michael F. Hynes

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLegume Nitrogen Fixing Symbiosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRhizobiaPlasmidBiologyNitrogen fixationRhizobium leguminosarumGeneticsRhizobiumHorizontal gene transferGeneGenomeMicrobiologyRhizobiaceaeBacteriaSymbiosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rhizobia are agriculturally important bacteria that can form nitrogen-fixing nodules on the roots of leguminous plants. Agricultural application of rhizobial inoculants can play an important role in increasing leguminous crop yields. In temperate rhizobia, genes involved in nodulation and nitrogen fixation are usually located on one or more large plasmids (pSyms) or on symbiotic islands. In addition, other large plasmids of rhizobia carry genes that are beneficial for survival and competition of rhizobia in the rhizosphere. Conjugative transfer of these large plasmids thus plays an important role in the evolution of rhizobia. Therefore, understanding the mechanism of conjugative transfer of large rhizobial plasmids provides foundations for maintaining, monitoring, and predicting the behaviour of these plasmids during field release events. In this minireview, we summarize two types of known rhizobial conjugative plasmids, including quorum sensing regulated plasmids and RctA-repressed plasmids. We provide evidence for the existence of a third type of conjugative plasmid, including pRleVF39c in Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. viciae strain VF39SM, and we provide a comparison of the different types of conjugation genes found in members of the rhizobia that have had their genomes sequenced so far.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations77
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicLegume Nitrogen Fixing SymbiosisFrench-language works237,207