Detection of a chitinase-like protein in the roots of Douglas-fir trees infected with Armillaria ostoyae and Phellinus weirii
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein was extracted from root bark of 11- and 25-year-old interior Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) trees that were naturally infected with Armillaria ostoyae (Romagnesi) Herink. The proteins were separated by sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE). Root bark tissue adjacent to infected areas had a significantly higher protein concentration than healthy tissue (P < 0.05), whereas the protein concentration of infected tissue was consistently lower (P < 0.05) than that of healthy tissue. The SDS-PAGE profiles of healthy, infected, and adjacent-to-infected root bark tissues revealed significant differences in concentrations of a 29.3-kDa protein. The N-terminal amino acid sequence of the 29.3-kDa protein displayed significant homology (P = 0.013) to a basic endochitinase. Use of a polyclonal antibody raised against the 29.3-kDa putative endochitinase-like protein (ECP) indicated differences in the quantities of ECP in healthy roots compared with roots infected with A. ostoyae in 11- and 25-year-old interior Douglas-fir trees. The antibody was also used to screen for the presence of the 29.3-kDa protein in roots of 24-year-old coastal Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii) trees that were artificially inoculated with and colonized by Phellinus weirii (Murr.) Gilbn. The amount of ECP was elevated in root bark of coastal Douglas-fir in response to P. weirii infection, although in lower quantities relative to those found in the A. ostoyae-interior Douglas-fir pathosystem. The sequence homology of the ECP with a basic chitinase, together with its increased synthesis in response to two fungal pathogens, indicate a possible role for this protein in the defense of Douglas-fir against fungal pathogens.
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) | 0.000 | 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".