<i>Sipha maydis</i>sensitivity to defences of<i>Lolium multiflorum</i>and its endophytic fungus<i>Epichloë</i>occultans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Plants possess a sophisticated immune system to defend from herbivores. These defence responses are regulated by plant hormones including salicylic acid (SA) and jasmonic acid (JA). Sometimes, plant defences can be complemented by the presence of symbiotic microorganisms. A remarkable example of this are grasses establishing symbiotic associations withEpichloëfungal endophytes. We studied the level of resistance provided by the grass’ defence hormones, and that provided byEpichloëfungal endophytes, against an introduced herbivore aphid. These fungi protect their hosts against herbivores by producing bioactive alkaloids. We hypothesized that either the presence of fungal endophytes or the induction of the plant salicylic acid (SA) defence pathway would enhance the level of resistance of the grass to the aphid. Methods Lolium multiflorumplants, with and without the fungal endophyteEpichloë occultans, were subjected to an exogenous application of SA followed by a challenge with the aphid,Sipha maydis. Results Our results indicate that neither the presence ofE. occultansnor the induction of the plant’s SA pathway regulateS. maydispopulations. However, endophyte-symbiotic plants may have been more tolerant to the aphid feeding because these plants produced more aboveground biomass. We suggest that this insect insensitivity could be explained by a combination between the ineffectiveness of the specific alkaloids produced byE. occultansin controllingS. maydisaphids and the capacity of this herbivore to deal with hormone-dependent defences ofL. multiflorum.
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".