The characterization and diversity of bacterial endophytes of grapevine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The diversity of culturable and nonculturable bacterial endophytes of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) was examined using a combination of cultivation and molecular methods. Entire grapevines were sampled to characterize bacterial diversity from different locations throughout the vine. Gas chromatography of fatty acid methyl esters (FAMEs) was used to identify culturable isolates prior to subsequent further microbiological characterization, whilst denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) was used to profile the ribosomal DNA of the bacterial endophyte community extracted from grapevines. Gas chromatography of FAMEs identified 75% of culturable bacterial endophytes to genus level (similarity index >0.3). Many isolates were identified as Bacillus spp., Pseudomonas spp., and Curtobacterium spp. Additionally, actinomycetes are reported for the first time as endophytes of grapevines, with a number of isolates identified as Streptomyces spp. DGGE was successfully used to identify major bands present in samples and indicated a degree of homogeneity of bacterial endophyte community profiles within the grapevines sampled. The major bacterial bands were sequenced and used in identification. Comparison with bacterial markers produced from cultured bacterial endophytes suggested that bacteria in the DGGE profiles were not the species most commonly cultured. Additional research demonstrated similarities between epiphytic and endophytic populations and examined potential entry vectors. Endophyte entry was demonstrated in both field-grown and potted grapevines ('Chardonnay') using a rifampicin-resistant Bacillus cereus mutant. The possibility of grapevine epiphytes becoming endophytes, if the opportunity arises, was supported by comparison of gas chromatography of FAMEs from epiphytic and endophytic populations. This research adds grapevine bacterial endophyte communities to those that have been characterized by a multifaceted approach.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".