In vitro toxicity of natural and designed peptides to tree pathogens and pollen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The toxicities of four candidate peptides, which have potential for engineering disease resistance into poplars and conifers, were tested and compared in vitro. Cecropin B, (Ala 8,13,18 )-magainin II amide, and the two synthetic membrane interactive molecules (Peptidyl MIMs™) D2A21 and D4E1 inhibited germination of spores of the fungal pathogens Cronartium ribicola J.C. Fisch., Gremmeniella abietina (Lagerberg) Morelet, Melampsora medusaeThuem., Nectria galligena Bres. in Strass., Ophiostoma ulmi (Buisman) Nannf., and Septoria musiva Peck. Minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of peptides required to achieve >95% inhibition of germination of conidia and urediniospores ranged from 0.3 to >5 μM. Permutation analyses on MICs confirmed that peptides significantly reduced germination of fungus spores (P = 0.0038) and that MICs of the two synthetic peptides were, on average, lower than those of the two natural peptides (P = 0.0012). In contrast, peptides had much less of an effect on the pollen of Picea, Pinus, and Populus species and seeds of white pine; MICs from 10 μ Mt o >50μM of peptide were needed to arrest germination. Peptidyl MIM™ D2A21 combined high antifungal activity with low pollen toxicity. Similar to some antimicrobial pep- tides from plants, Peptidyl MIM™ D2A21 could not prevent germination of fungal spores in the presence of potato dextrose broth or chloride salts with divalent cations. This may explain why the peptide had only a limited effect on fungal mycelium grown in potato dextrose broth medium.
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".