The effect of flavones and flavonols on colonization of tomato plants by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi of the genera <i>Gigaspora</i> and <i>Glomus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No clear data are available on how flavonoids from different chemical groups affect root colonization by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) and whether flavonoids affecting the presymbiotic growth of AMF also affect root colonization by AMF. In the present work, we compared the effect of flavones (chrysin and luteolin) and flavonols (kaempferol, morin, isorhamnetin, and rutin) on root colonization (number of entry points and degree of root colonization) of tomato plants (Lycopersicum esculentum L.) with the effect of these flavonoids on the presymbiotic growth of these AMF, which has been reported in a recent study. With all tested AMF (Gigaspora rosea, Gigaspora margarita, Glomus mosseae, and Glomus intraradices) a correlation between the number of entry points and the percentage of root colonization was found. When the number of entry points was high, root colonization was also enhanced. Application of the flavones chrysin and luteolin and of the flavonol morin increased the number of entry points and the degree of colonization,whereas the flavonols kaempferol, isorhamnetin, and rutin showed no effect. These results show that in contrast to their effect on the presymbiotic growth of the AMF on the level of root colonization, the tested flavonoids do not exhibit a genus- and species-specificity. Moreover, comparison of our data with the data obtained by J.M. Scervino, M.A. Ponce, R. Erra-Bassells, H. Vierheilig, J.A. Ocampo, and A. Godeas. (2005a. J. Plant Interact. 15: 22-30) indicates that a positive effect on the hyphal growth of AMF does not necessarily result in an enhanced AM root colonization, further indicating that the mode of action of flavonoids at the level of root colonization is more complex.
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".