The effects of sequential inoculation of mixed rumen protozoa on the degradation of orchard grass cell walls by anaerobic fungus <i>Anaeromyces mucronatus</i> 543
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of protozoa on the degradation of plant cell walls (CW) during different growth stages of the fungus Anaeromyces mucronatus have been investigated. Since fungi show a marked lag in their in vitro cultures and many protozoa rapidly die during a prolonged incubation time, the effects of protozoa may vary according to the growth phase of the fungi. Therefore, the approach adopted was (i) to inoculate CW with fungus monoculture, (ii) to inoculate CW with fungus-protozoa coculture, or (iii) to sequentially inoculate fungal cultures that had been grown in CW for 24 (initial stage of growth), 48, and 72 h (late stage of growth) with mixed protozoa. When a fungus was associated with protozoa, a growth phase dependent effect was observed. Ruminal protozoa adversely affected the growth and activity when introduced in the initial growth stage of A. mucronatus, but a synergetic interaction was detected when added to late growth stage cultures. Although there is no immediate explanation for these results, the data suggested that protozoa can engulf the fungal zoospores, which are in ruminal fluids and (or) attached to small feed particles, but cannot engulf the fungal thallus that is tightly attached to feed particles by a rhizoidal system. Our data indicated that the protozoa did not influence cellulolysis by the fungi in exponential and (or) stationary phase, but they had a marked inhibitory effect on fungi that were in lag phase. Inhibition during lag phase could result from the protozoal predation of fungal zoospores that had failed to attach to substrates.
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) | 0.001 | 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".