The insect‐pathogenic fungus <i>Metarhizium robertsii</i> (Clavicipitaceae) is also an endophyte that stimulates plant root development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE OF THE STUDY: The soil-inhabiting insect-pathogenic fungus Metarhizium robertsii also colonizes plant roots endophytically, thus showing potential as a plant symbiont. Metarhizium robertsii is not randomly distributed in soils but preferentially associates with the plant rhizosphere when applied in agricultural settings. Root surface and endophytic colonization of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) and haricot beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) by M. robertsii were examined after inoculation with fungal conidia. METHODS: We used light and confocal microscopy to ascertain the plant endophytic association with GFP-expressing M. robertsii. Root lengths, root hair density, and lateral roots emerged were also observed. KEY RESULTS: Initially, M. robertsii conidia adhered to, germinated on, and colonized roots. Furthermore, plant roots treated with Metarhizium grew faster and the density of plant root hairs increased when compared with control plants. The onset of plant root hair proliferation was initiated before germination of M. robertsii on the root (within 1-2 d). Plants inoculated with M. robertsii ΔMAD2 (plant adhesin gene) took significantly longer to show root hair proliferation than the wild type. Cell free extracts of M. robertsii did not stimulate root hair proliferation. Longer-term (60 d) associations showed that M. robertsii endophytically colonized cortical cells within bean roots. Metarhizium appeared as a mycelial aggregate within root cortical cells as well as between the intercellular spaces with no apparent damage to the plant. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that M. robertsii is not only rhizosphere competent but also displays a beneficial endophytic association with plant roots that results in the proliferation of root hairs.
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".