MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108363711 · doi:10.1139/w00-128

Determination of 1-aminocycopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC) to assess the effects of ACC deaminase-containing bacteria on roots of canola seedlings

2001· article· en· W2108363711 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Donna M. Penrose, Barbara A. Moffatt, Bernard R. Glick

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanola1-Aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acidBacteriaEthyleneSeedlingGlycineElongationBiologyEnzymeHorticultureChemistryBiochemistryBotanyAmino acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previously, it was proposed that plant growth-promoting bacteria that possess the enzyme, 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC) deaminase, can reduce the amount of ethylene produced by a plant and thereby promote root elongation. To test this model, canola seeds were imbibed in the presence of the chemical ethylene inhibitor, 2-aminoethoxyvinyl glycine (AVG), various strains of plant growth-promoting bacteria, and a psychrophilic bacterium containing an ACC deaminase gene on a broad host range plasmid. The extent of root elongation and levels of ACC, the immediate precursor of ethylene, were measured in the canola seedling roots. A modification of the Waters AccQ.Tag Amino Acid Analysis Method was used to quantify ACC in the root extracts. It was found that, in the presence of the ethylene inhibitor, AVG, or any one of several ACC deaminase-containing strains of bacteria, the growth of canola seedling roots was enhanced and the ACC levels in these roots were lowered.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations212
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicPlant-Microbe Interactions and ImmunityFrench-language works237,207