Arbuscular mycorrhiza on root-organ cultures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi and the AM symbiosis formed with host plant roots is complicated by the biotrophic and hypogeous nature of the mycobionts involved. To overcome this, several attempts have been made during the last three decades to obtain this symbiosis in vitro. The use of root-organ cultures has proved particularly successful. In this review, we describe the method by which root-organ cultures (transformed and nontransformed) have been obtained, together with the choice of host species, inoculation techniques, and culture media. We also outline the potential use of continuous cultures and cryopreservation of in vitro produced spores for long-term germ plasm storage. Furthermore, this review highlights the considerable impact that in vitro root-organ cultures have had on studies of AM fungal morphology, taxonomy, and phylogeny and how they have improved our understanding of the processes leading to root colonization and development of the extraradical mycelium. This is supported by a summary of some of the most important findings, regarding this symbiosis, that have been made at the physiological, biochemical, and molecular levels. We also summarize results from studies between AM fungi and certain pathogenic and nonpathogenic soil microorganisms. We describe some of the limitations of this in vitro system and propose diverse avenues of AM research that can now be undertaken, including the potential use of a similar system for ectomycorrhizal research.Key words: arbuscular mycorrhiza, root-organ cultures, Glomales, in vitro, root symbioses, source of inoculum, cryopreservation, intraradical and extraradical mycelium, mycorrhizosphere.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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".