Microtubules of the mycorrhizal fungus <i>Glomus intraradices</i> in symbiosis with tomato roots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study the presence and orientation of fungal microtubules were recorded in arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis for the first time. Visualization of the fungal microtubules was achieved by using a protocol specifically labelling only fungal tubulins. Microtubules of external mycelium, intraradical hyphae, arbuscules, and vesicles of the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus intraradices Schenck & Smith were examined when in symbiosis with tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Microtubules were organized as bundles in both external and intraradical hyphae. The bundles of microtubules extended directly from intraradical hyphae into the arbuscules, where the microtubules remained as bundles in the larger hyphae. In the fine fungal branches of the arbuscules, microtubules were seen as thinner filaments. Fungal microtubules were seen to connect the intraradical hyphae and arbuscules. In addition, microtubules of adjacent arbuscules could continue directly from one arbuscule to another. Microtubules reached to the basal cone of each vesicle, but the live vesicles, containing many nuclei, seemed devoid of any microtubular labelling.Key words: cytoskeleton, endomycorrhiza, filamentous fungi, tomato, tubulin, Zygomycota.
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) | 0.001 | 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".