Plant growth‐promoting rhizobacteria systemically protect <i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i> against <i>Cucumber mosaic virus</i> by a salicylic acid and NPR1‐independent and jasmonic acid‐dependent signaling pathway
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arabidopsis thaliana ecotype Columbia plants (Col-0) treated with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) Serattia marcescens strain 90-166 and Bacillus pumilus strain SE34 had significantly reduced symptom severity by Cucumber mosaic virus (CMV). In some cases, CMV accumulation was also significantly reduced in systemically infected leaves. The signal transduction pathway(s) associated with induced resistance against CMV by strain 90-166 was determined using mutant strains and transgenic and mutant Arabidopsis lines. NahG plants treated with strains 90-166 and SE34 had reduced symptom severity indicating that the resistance did not require salicylic acid (SA). Strain 90-166 naturally produces SA under iron-limited conditions. Col-0 and NahG plants treated with the SA-deficient mutant, 90-166-1441, had significantly reduced CMV symptom severity with reduced virus accumulation in Col-0 plants. Another PGPR mutant, 90-166-2882, caused reduced disease severity in Col-0 and NahG plants. In a time course study, strain 90-166 reduced virus accumulation at 7 but not at 14 and 21 days post-inoculation (dpi) on the non-inoculated leaves of Col-0 plants. NahG and npr1-1 plants treated with strain 90-166 had reduced amounts of virus at 7 and 14 dpi but not at 21 dpi. In contrast, no decrease in CMV accumulation occurred in strain 90-166-treated fad3-2 fad7-2 fad8 plants. These data indicate that the protection of Arabidopsis against CMV by strain 90-166 follows a signaling pathway for virus protection that is independent of SA and NPR1, but dependent on jasmonic acid.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".