Actinobacterial chitinase-like enzymes: profiles of rhizosphere versus non-rhizosphere isolates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine if antifungal actinomycetes isolated from rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soils exhibit different chitinase-like production and (or) induction patterns. Selected isolates from both habitats were compared. Chitinase-like levels and isoform characteristic patterns were evaluated over time in culture fluids of isolates grown on media containing different combinations of colloidal chitin and fungal cell wall (FCW) preparation. Supernatants were also subjected to native and non-native polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE), using glycol chitin amended gels. For non-native PAGE, protein samples were denatured by two different approaches. Multiple active bands, ranging from 20 to 53 kDa and present in varying amounts, were detected in gels for most strains. Different substrate preferences were observed among strains, and different chitinase-like enzymes were produced, depending upon the substrate combinations used. The presence of FCW in the medium induced specific chitinase-like enzymes not observed otherwise. Enzymatic activities and profiles of the isolates, however, were strain and substrate specific rather than habitat specific. However, a sagebrush rhizosphere soil had a larger actinomycete community with higher chitinolytic activities than the nearby bulk soil. The use of PAGE to compare chitinase-like proteins induced in media with and without FCW was useful for identifying chitinase-like enzymes potentially involved in antifungal activity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".