Organic acids and root exudates of <i>Brachypodium distachyon</i>: effects on chemotaxis and biofilm formation of endophytic bacteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Root colonization by plant-growth-promoting bacteria could not be useful without the beneficial properties of the bacterium itself. Thus, it is necessary to evaluate the bacterial capacity to form biofilms and establish a successful interaction with the plant roots. We assessed the ability of growth-promoting bacterial strains to form biofilm and display chemotactic behaviour in response to organic acids and (or) root exudates of the model plant Brachypodium distachyon. This assessment was based on the evaluation of single strains of bacteria and a multispecies consortium. The strains coexisted together and formed biofilm under biotic (living root) and abiotic (glass) surfaces. Citric acid stimulated biofilm formation in all individual strains, indicating a strong chemotactic behaviour towards organic acids. Recognizing that the transition from single strains of bacteria to a “multicellular” system would not happen without the presence of adhesion, the alginate and exopolysaccharide (EPS) contents were evaluated. The EPS amounts were comparable in single strains and consortium forms. Alginate production increased 160% in the consortium subjected to drought stress (10% PEG). These findings demonstrated that (i) bacteria–bacteria interaction is the hub of various factors that would not only affect their relation but also could indirectly affect the balanced plant–microbe relation and (ii) root exudates could be very selective in recruiting a highly qualified multispecies consortium.
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".