MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3032336982 · doi:10.1016/j.bioflm.2020.100021

Surfactin production is not essential for pellicle and root-associated biofilm development of Bacillus subtilis

2020· article· en· W3032336982 on OpenAlexafffund
Maude Thérien, Heiko T. Kiesewalter, Emile Auria, Vincent Charron‐Lamoureux, Mario Wibowo, Gergely Maróti, Ákos T. Kovács, Pascale B. Beauregard

Bibliographic record

VenueBiofilm · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDanmarks GrundforskningsfondNational Research Foundation
KeywordsSurfactinBiofilmBacillus subtilisLipopeptideMicrobiologyBacteriaBiologyChemistryMicroorganismStrain (injury)Bacillus (shape)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Secondary metabolites have an important impact on the biocontrol potential of soil-derived microbes. In addition, various microbe-produced chemicals have been suggested to impact the development and phenotypic differentiation of bacteria, including biofilms. The non-ribosomal synthesized lipopeptide of Bacillus subtilis, surfactin, has been described to impact the plant promoting capacity of the bacterium. Here, we investigated the impact of surfactin production on biofilm formation of B. subtilis using the laboratory model systems; pellicle formation at the air-medium interface and architecturally complex colony development, in addition to plant root-associated biofilms. We found that the production of surfactin by B. subtilis is not essential for pellicle biofilm formation neither in the well-studied strain, NCIB 3610, nor in the newly isolated environmental strains, but lack of surfactin reduces colony expansion. Further, plant root colonization was comparable both in the presence or absence of surfactin synthesis. Our results suggest that surfactin-related biocontrol and plant promotion in B. subtilis strains are independent of biofilm formation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations71
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiofilmSame topicPlant-Microbe Interactions and ImmunityFrench-language works237,207