Genetic Diversity and Phylogeny of Antagonistic Bacteria against Phytophthora nicotianae Isolated from Tobacco Rhizosphere
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The genetic diversity of antagonistic bacteria from the tobacco rhizosphere was examined by BOXAIR-PCR, 16S-RFLP, 16S rRNA sequence homology and phylogenetic analysis methods. These studies revealed that 4.01% of the 6652 tested had some inhibitory activity against Phytophthora nicotianae. BOXAIR-PCR analysis revealed 35 distinct amplimers aligning at a 91% similarity level, reflecting a high degree of genotypic diversity among the antagonistic bacteria. A total of 25 16S-RFLP patterns were identified representing over 33 species from 17 different genera. Our results also found a significant amount of bacterial diversity among the antagonistic bacteria compared to other published reports. For the first time; Delftia tsuruhatensis, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Advenella incenata, Bacillus altitudinis, Kocuria palustris, Bacillus licheniformis, Agrobacterium tumefaciens and Myroides odoratimimus are reported to display antagonistic activity towards Phytophthora nicotianae. Furthermore, the majority (75%) of the isolates assayed for antagonistic activity were Gram-positives compared to only 25% that were Gram-negative bacteria.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".