Genetic diversity and symbiotic efficiency difference of endophytic rhizobia of <i>Medicago sativa</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on rhizobium diversity has paved the way for diversification of rhizobial germplasm resources. Seventy-three endophytic bacterial isolates were collected from seven tissues of five alfalfa cultivars in three geographic locations in Gansu, China. Restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) fingerprinting of 16S rRNA and analysis of concatenated sequence of three housekeeping genes (atpD, glnII, and recA) and two symbiotic genes (nodC and nifH) were used for strain identification. Results showed that the endophytic strains were genetically diverse at different taxonomic levels, and Ensifer meliloti (31) and Agrobacterium radiobacter (12) are common Medicago sativa endophytic bacteria in Gansu, China. The nifH genes (97%-98% sequence identity) of E. meliloti strains were more diverse than the nodC genes (99%-100% sequence identity), even though the strains evolved from a common ancestor. The degree of dispersion of symbiotic phenotypes of E. meliloti strains on M. sativa 'Gannong No. 3', 'Gannong No. 9', and 'Qingshui' was much less than that on M. sativa 'Longzhong' and 'WL168HQ'. This suggested that the symbiotic efficiency of E. meliloti strains on the former three alfalfa cultivars was similar but on the latter two was discrepant. Their symbiotic efficiency differed primarily according to alfalfa cultivars and, to a lesser extent, to the tested strains, indicating the difference in the sensitivity of different alfalfa cultivars to rhizobial strains.
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 | 0.001 | 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".