Effects of two cryopreservation techniques on viability and pathogenicity of entomophthoralean fungi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The difficulties in long-term storage of cultures of Entomophthorales create a barrier to working with these entomopathogenic fungi. Relatively few laboratories have access to controlled cooling apparatus and storage in liquid nitrogen, but a simpler, more affordable technique to store cultures at 80°C is available. We compared viability among three entomophthoraleans and pathogenicity for one species for both storage techniques over 10 months. Fluorescent staining for viability demonstrated that there was no statistically significant difference by storage treatment for all three fungi. Although cells of Entomophaga aulicae (Reichardt in Bail) Humber decreased in viability after 8 and 10 months of storage, similar declines were not seen with Entomophaga maimaiga Humber, Shimazu & Soper or Zoophthora radicans (Brefeld) Batko. Bioassays of E. maimaiga against gypsy moth larvae, Lymantria dispar (L.), demonstrated no differences in time to death or percent mortality after 10 months of storage by either method. However, after 10 months, fewer cadavers of larvae injected with cultures stored at 80°C abundantly produced conidia. Our findings suggest that for these isolates from three species of Entomophthorales, storage at 80°C after a simple freezing protocol had a minor effect compared with storage at 196°C, but some cultures were more sensitive to prolonged freezing than others.Key words: Entomophaga aulicae, Entomophaga maimaiga, Zoophthora radicans, storage, in vitro culture, entomopathogenic fungi.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".