Stability and Activity of the Major Nod Factor Produced by <i>Bradyrhizobium japonicum</i> following Purification, Sterilization, and Storage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nod factors, also known as lipo‐chitooligosaccharides (LCOs), are signal molecules produced by rhizobia during rhizobia‐legume symbiosis. These Nod factors often must be purified, sterilized, and stored before use in research experiments. Therefore, we evaluated the influence of purification, sterilization, and storage methods on degradation and biological activity of Nod factor comprised primarily of Nod BjV(C18:1 MeFuc). During filter sterilization, various types of filters affected the amount of LCO recovered: polyestersulfone (67.7%), cellulose acetate (54.9%), nylon (48.1%), polytetrafluoroethylene (38.0%), and mixed cellulose ester (31.8%). During autoclaving (durations of 15 to 30 min) ∼30% of the LCO was lost. LCO degraded faster when stored at 23 ± 2°C (room temperature) than at 4 ± 1°C (refrigerator); after 16 mo, 74% of the LCO was recovered following room temperature storage and 84% following refrigerator storage. The biological activity (root hair deformation and stimulation of soybean seed germination) of LCO (10 −7 M ) obtained from autoclaved and stored samples were not different from that of freshly prepared LCO; no reduction in biological activity was found.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".