MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Quantification of the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus <i> Glomus intraradices</i> in host tissue using real‐time polymerase chain reaction

2004· article· en· W2145626333 on OpenAlexaff
Noam Alkan, Vijay Gadkar, Joel Coburn, Oded Yarden, Yoram Kapulnik

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersMinistry of Agriculture and Rural Development
KeywordsBiologyFungusMedicago truncatulaPolymerase chain reactionGlomusReal-time polymerase chain reactionPrimer (cosmetics)ColonizationMycorrhizaBotanyHost (biology)SporeHyphaMicrobiologyGeneSymbiosisBacteriaBiochemistryGeneticsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• A rapid method to quantify the colonization of the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus (AMF) Glomus intraradices in planta using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) technique. • Specific PCR primers for the fungus (28S rDNA sequence) and host root tissue (chitinase and chalcone synthase gene) were developed and their respective specificity determined. • The plant specific primers for Lycopersicon esculentum, Medicago truncatula amplified linearly over a concentration range of: 6.4 pg to 20 ng. The G. intraradices-specific primer amplified as low as 1 pg of its target DNA, which allowed us to detect a single spore of the fungus. High degrees of correlation were obtained when threshold cycle (Ct) was plotted against vesicular, hyphal and total colonization using microscopically quantified host roots. • This is the first report of the application of the qRT-PCR technique for quantification of AMF colonization in planta. The success of its application should open up the possibility of its wider application in AM research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations84
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew PhytologistSame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207