MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801995650 · doi:10.1139/cjm-2018-0035

<i>Archaea</i> are prominent members of the prokaryotic communities colonizing common forest mushrooms

2018· article· en· W2801995650 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Johanna M. Rinta‐Kanto, Kati Pehkonen, Hanna Sinkko, Manu Tamminen, Sari Timonen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFungal Biology and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGammaproteobacteriaArchaeaBacteriaActinobacteriaAlphaproteobacteriaBotany16S ribosomal RNABacilliMicrobial ecologyAscomycotaMicrobiologyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, the abundance and composition of prokaryotic communities associated with the inner tissue of fruiting bodies of Suillus bovinus, Boletus pinophilus, Cantharellus cibarius, Agaricus arvensis, Lycoperdon perlatum, and Piptoporus betulinus were analyzed using culture-independent methods. Our findings indicate that archaea and bacteria colonize the internal tissues of all investigated specimens and that archaea are prominent members of the prokaryotic community. The ratio of archaeal 16S rRNA gene copy numbers to those of bacteria was >1 in the fruiting bodies of four out of six fungal species included in the study. The largest proportion of archaeal 16S rRNA gene sequences belonged to thaumarchaeotal classes Terrestrial group, Miscellaneous Crenarchaeotic Group (MCG), and Thermoplasmata. Bacterial communities showed characteristic compositions in each fungal species. Bacterial classes Gammaproteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Bacilli, and Clostridia were prominent among communities in fruiting body tissues. Bacterial populations in each fungal species had different characteristics. The results of this study imply that fruiting body tissues are an important habitat for abundant and diverse populations of archaea and bacteria.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicFungal Biology and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207