In vitro attachment of phylloplane yeasts to<i>Botrytis cinerea</i>,<i>Rhizoctonia solani</i>, and<i>Sclerotinia homoeocarpa</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability of yeasts to attach to hyphae or conidia of phytopathogenic fungi has been speculated to contribute to biocontrol activity on plant surfaces. Attachment of phylloplane yeasts to Botrytis cinerea, Rhizoctonia solani, and Sclerotinia homoeocarpa was determined using in vitro attachment assays. Yeasts were incubated for 2 d on potato dextrose agar (PDA) prior to experimentation. A total of 292 yeasts cultured on PDA were screened for their ability to attach to conidia of B. cinerea; 260 isolates (89.1%) attached to conidia forming large aggregates of cells, and 22 isolates (7.5%) weakly attached to conidia with 1 or 2 yeast cells attached to a few conidia. Ten yeasts (3.4%), including 8 isolates of Cryptococcus laurentii, 1 isolate of Cryptococcus flavescens, and an unidentified species of Cryptococcus, failed to attach to conidia. All non-attaching yeasts produced copious extracellular polysaccharide (EPS) on PDA. Seventeen yeast isolates did not attach to hyphal fragments of B. cinerea, R. solani, and S. homoeocarpa after a 1 h incubation, but attachment was observed after 24 h. Culture medium, but not culture age, significantly affected the attachment of yeast cells to conidia of B. cinerea. The 10 yeast isolates that did not attach to conidia when grown on agar did attach to conidia (20%-57% of conidia with attached yeast cells) when cultured in liquid medium. Attachment of the biocontrol yeast Rhodotorula glutinis PM4 to conidia of B. cinerea was significantly greater at 1 x 10(7) yeast cells x mL(-1) than at lower concentrations of yeast cells. The ability of yeast cells to attach to fungal conidia or hyphae appears to be a common phenotype among phylloplane yeasts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".