Variability in the Insect and Plant Adhesins, Mad1 and Mad2, within the Fungal Genus Metarhizium Suggest Plant Adaptation as an Evolutionary Force
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several species of the insect pathogenic fungus Metarhizium are associated with certain plant types and genome analyses suggested a bifunctional lifestyle; as an insect pathogen and as a plant symbiont. Here we wanted to explore whether there was more variation in genes devoted to plant association (Mad2) or to insect association (Mad1) overall in the genus Metarhizium. Greater divergence within the genus Metarhizium in one of these genes may provide evidence for whether host insect or plant is a driving force in adaptation and evolution in the genus Metarhizium. We compared differences in variation in the insect adhesin gene, Mad1, which enables attachment to insect cuticle, and the plant adhesin gene, Mad2, which enables attachment to plants. Overall variation for the Mad1 promoter region (7.1%), Mad1 open reading frame (6.7%), and Mad2 open reading frame (7.4%) were similar, while it was higher in the Mad2 promoter region (9.9%). Analysis of the transcriptional elements within the Mad2 promoter region revealed variable STRE, PDS, degenerative TATA box, and TATA box-like regions, while this level of variation was not found for Mad1. Sequences were also phylogenetically compared to EF-1α, which is used for species identification, in 14 isolates representing 7 different species in the genus Metarhizium. Phylogenetic analysis demonstrated that the Mad2 phylogeny is more congruent with 5' EF-1α than Mad1. This would suggest that Mad2 has diverged among Metarhizium lineages, contributing to clade- and species-specific variation, while it appears that Mad1 has been largely conserved. While other abiotic and biotic factors cannot be excluded in contributing to divergence, these results suggest that plant relationships, rather than insect host, have been a major driving factor in the divergence of the genus Metarhizium.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".