Associations between microfungal endophytes and roots: do structural features indicate function?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Roots encounter a plethora of microorganisms in the soil environment that are either deleterious, neutral, or beneficial to plant growth. Root endophytic fungi are ubiquitous. These include dark septate endophytes whose role in plant growth and the maintenance of plant communities is largely unknown. The objectives of this review were to assess the structural features of the interactions between dark septate endophytic fungi and the roots of both angiopsperms and conifers, and to suggest avenues for further research. Several light microscopy studies of endophyte–root interactions have revealed a variety of structural features, depending on host species and plant growth conditions. In some cases, when fungal hyphae enter roots they cause cell breakdown, whereas in other situations there is little noticeable effect. In some tree species, associations with these endophytes may mimic ectomycorrhizas or ectendomycorrhizas. The few ultrastructural studies indicate that intracellular hyphae lack a host-derived perifungal membrane and interfacial matrix material, features typical of biotrophic fungus – plant cell interactions. This raises questions concerning nutrient exchange between these fungi and plant cells. Further research in this area is needed. New approaches that include molecular cytology and live-cell imaging are needed to determine early changes in plant cells when challenged with these fungi.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".