MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2982909762 · doi:10.14288/1.0384823

Molecular responses of plants to symbiotic fungi

2019· article· en· W2982909762 on OpenAlexaff
Ribeiro Quitans

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSymbiosisBiologyBacteriaPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plants and fungi interact in complex ways that can benefit or harm a plant. To better understand how plants defend against pathogens and enhance interactions with beneficial fungi, I used several different approaches to identify genes and pathways involved in these processes. First, I developed a bioinformatics pipeline to search for antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) in public DNA sequence databases. I found 16,870 novel candidate AMPs from 1,003 species, and demonstrated that transcripts of heveins and cyclolinopeptides (CLPs), especially, increased abundance in response to a pathogenic fungus (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lini) but not a mutualistic fungus (Rhizoglomus irregulare). Second, I developed an in vitro system to evaluate the effects of the interaction of two mutualistic fungi (Rhizoglomus irregulare and Clonostachys rosea) on flax roots infected by F. oxysporum. I found that both R. irregulare and C. rosea have bio-protective effects against F. oxysporum. R. irregulare also increased flax biomass production, while mitigating the negative effects caused by F. oxysporum on shoot length and biomass. Third, I used RNA-Seq to compare the pre-colonization responses of flax roots to inoculation with R. irregulare or F. oxysporum, separately and in combination. I found distinct classes of genes that responded uniquely to the pathogen and the mutualist. Finally, I tested the activity of flax CLPs, polyamines (PAs), and carbendazim against three pathogenic fungi: F. oxysporum, S. linicola, and Alternaria sp. I found that CLPs and PAs have antifungal activity in vitro against the fungi studied at a concentration range that might be biologically relevant. We suggest that CLPs and PAs should be tested for the mitigation of Alternaria sp. in vivo, since these compounds had better effects on the growth inhibition of this fungus in comparison to a commercial antifungal agent. Together, these data will improve the understanding of mechanisms underlying pathogenicity and mutualism, and will lead to the development of better strategies to control fungal diseases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Collections→Same topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases→French-language works237,207→