MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110735123 · doi:10.3390/ijms12053055

Genetic Diversity and Phylogeny of Antagonistic Bacteria against Phytophthora nicotianae Isolated from Tobacco Rhizosphere

2011· article· en· W2110735123 on OpenAlexaff
Fengli Jin, Yanqin Ding, Wei Ding, M. S. Reddy, W. G. Dilantha Fernando, Binghai Du

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Molecular Sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPhytophthora nicotianaeRhizosphereStenotrophomonas16S ribosomal RNAMicrobiologyBacteriaSerratiaGenetic diversityBotanyRestriction fragment length polymorphismPhytophthoraGenotypeGeneticsPopulationPseudomonasGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations58
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Molecular SciencesSame topicPlant-Microbe Interactions and ImmunityFrench-language works237,207