Endophytic bacterial communities of field-grown potato plants and their plant-growth-promoting and antagonistic abilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To study the effect of plant growth on potato-associated bacteria, the composition and properties of bacteria colonizing the endosphere of field-grown potato were analyzed by a multiphasic approach. The occurrence and diversity of potato-associated bacteria were monitored by a cultivation-independent approach, using terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of 16S rDNA. The patterns obtained revealed a high heterogeneity of community composition and suggested the existence of plant-specific communities. However, endophytic populations correlated to a certain extent with plant growth performance. Endophytes were also isolated from plants that grew well or grew poorly and were identified by partial sequencing of the 16S rRNA genes. A broad phylogenetic spectrum was found among isolates and differently growing plants hosted different bacterial populations. In an approach to investigate the plant-growth-promoting potential of potato-associated bacteria, a total of 35 bacteria were screened by dual testing for in vitro antagonism towards (i) the fungal pathogens Verticillium dahliae, Rhizoctonia solani, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, and Phytophthora cactorum and (ii) the bacterial pathogens Erwinia carotovora, Streptomyces scabies, and Xanthomonas campestris. The proportion of isolates with antagonistic activity was highest against Streptomyces sp. (43%) followed by those against Xanthomonas sp. (29%). As all plants showed more or less severe disease symptoms of scab disease caused by Streptomyces scabies, we assume that the presence of the pathogen induced the colonization of antagonists. The antifungal activity of the isolates was generally low. The biotechnological potential of endophytic isolates assessed by their antagonistic activity and by in vitro production of enzymes, antibiotics, siderophores, and the plant growth hormone indole-1,3-acetic acid was generally high. Overall, seven endophytes were found to antagonize fungal as well as bacterial pathogens and showed a high production of active compounds and were therefore considered promising biological control agents.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".