Influence of Cry1Ac Toxin From Bt Cotton on the Soil Microbiota
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first record of transgenic cotton cultivation in Brazil was in 2005, of that of the cultivar MON 531, possessing the cry1Ac gene. Since then, no evaluation has been performed to understand whether the cultivation of Bt cotton has caused any interference with the soil microbiota, including bacteria. In this context, our research was aimed to assess whether the cultivation of Bt cotton negatively affects the community of soil bacteria, through quantitative and metagenomic analyses (marker gene 16S rRNA) for phylum identification. Samples of bacterial populations obtained from the soil cultivated with Bt cotton expressing the Cry1Ac toxin were compared with soil samples from the area cultivated with conventional cotton. Significant differences were not observed in the measure of colony-forming units of bacteria between the soils cultivated with Bt and non-Bt cotton; however, differences were detected only when comparing samples from different collection times of the Bt treatment. Cultivation of Bt cotton did not affect the diversity of the soil bacterial population. Overall, our study shows that, similar to most of the works that have been reported worldwide, cultivation of transgenic cotton does not seem to affect the quantity and diversity of natural soil 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 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) | 0.001 | 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".