Examining the Impacts of CO2 Concentration and Genetic Compatibility on Perennial Ryegrass—Epichloë festucae var lolii Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) is the most cultivated cool-season grass worldwide with crucial roles in carbon fixation, turfgrass applications, and fodder for livestock. Lolium perenne forms a mutualism with the strictly vertically transmitted fungal endophyte, Epichloë festucae var lolii. The fungus produces alkaloids that protect the grass from herbivory, as well as conferring protection from drought and nutrient stress. The rising concentration of atmospheric CO2, a proximate cause of climatic change, is known to have many direct and indirect effects on plant growth. There is keen interest in how the nature of this plant–fungal interaction will change with climate change. Lolium perenne is an obligately outcrossing species, meaning that the genetic profile of the host is constantly being reshuffled. Meanwhile, the fungus is asexual implying both a relatively constant genetic profile and the potential for incompatible grass–fungus pairings. In this study, we used a single cultivar, “Alto”, of L. perenne. Each plant was infected with one of four strains of the endophyte: AR1, AR37, NEA2, and Lp19 (the “common strain”). We outcrossed the Alto mothers with pollen from a number of individuals from different ryegrass cultivars to create more genetic diversity in the hosts. We collected seed such that we had replicate maternal half-sib families. Seed from each family was randomly allocated into the two levels of the CO2 treatment, 400 and 800 ppm. Elevated CO2 resulted in an c. 18% increase in plant biomass. AR37 produced higher fungal concentrations than other strains; NEA2 produced the lowest fungal concentrations. We did not find evidence of genetic incompatibility between the host plants and the fungal strains. We conducted untargeted metabolomics and quantitative proteomics to investigate the grass-fungus interactions between and within family and treatment groups. We identified a number of changes in both the proteome and metabalome. Taken together, our data set provides new understanding into the intricacy of the interaction between endophyte and host from multiple molecular levels and suggests opportunity to promote plant robustness and survivability in rising CO2 environmental conditions through application of bioprotective epichloid strains.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".