Root colonization by endophytic insect‐pathogenic fungi
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several ascomycetous insect-pathogenic fungi, including species in the genera Beauveria and Metarhizium, are plant root symbionts/endophytes and are termed as endophytic insect-pathogenic fungi (EIPF). The endophytic capability and insect pathogenicity of Metarhizium are coupled to provide an active method of insect-derived nitrogen transfer to plant hosts via fungal mycelia. In exchange for the insect-derived nitrogen, the plant provides photosynthate to the fungus. This symbiotic interaction offers other benefits to the plant-EIPF can improve plant growth, they are antagonistic to plant pathogens and herbivores and can enhance the plant tolerance to abiotic stresses. The mechanisms and underlying biochemical and genetic features of insect pathogenesis are generally well-established. However, there is a paucity of information regarding the underlying mechanisms in this plant-symbiotic association. Here we review five aspects of EIPF interactions with host plant roots: (i) rhizosphere colonization, (ii) signalling factors from the plant and EIPF, (iii) modulation of plant defence responses, (iv) nutrient exchange and (v) tripartite interactions with insects and other micro-organisms. The elucidation of these interactions is fundamental to understanding this symbiotic association for effective application of EIPF in an agricultural setting.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it