Soil contamination alters the willow root and rhizosphere metatranscriptome and the root–rhizosphere interactome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phytoremediation using willows is thought to be a sustainable alternative to traditional remediation techniques involving excavation, transport, and landfilling. However, the complexity of the interaction between the willow and its associated highly diverse microbial communities makes the optimization of phytoremediation very difficult. Here, we have sequenced the rhizosphere metatranscriptome of four willow species and the plant root metatranscriptome for two willow species growing in petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated and non-contaminated soils on a former petroleum refinery site. Significant differences in the abundance of transcripts related to different bacterial and fungal taxa were observed between willow species, mostly in contaminated soils. When comparing transcript abundance in contaminated vs. non-contaminated soil for each willow species individually, transcripts for many microbial taxa and functions were significantly more abundant in contaminated rhizosphere soil for Salix eriocephala, S. miyabeana and S. purpurea, in contrast to what was observed in the rhizosphere of S. caprea. This agrees with the previously reported sensitivity of S. caprea to contamination, and the superior tolerance of S. miyabeana and S. purpurea to soil contamination at that site. The root metatranscriptomes of two species were compared and revealed that plants transcripts are mainly influenced by willow species, while microbial transcripts mainly responded to contamination. A comparison of the rhizosphere and root metatranscriptomes in the S. purpurea species revealed a complete reorganization of the linkages between root and rhizosphere pathways when comparing willows growing in contaminated and non-contaminated soils, mainly because of large shifts in the rhizosphere metatranscriptome.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".