MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3114184377 · doi:10.1093/jxb/eraa607

Home sweet home: how mutualistic microbes modify root development to promote symbiosis

2020· review· en· W3114184377 on OpenAlexafffund
Mina Ghahremani, Allyson M. MacLean

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Botany · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLegume Nitrogen Fixing Symbiosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPericycleBiologySymbiosisOrganismRoot (linguistics)EndosymbiosisOrganogenesisPlant developmentEcologyBacteriaGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Post-embryonic organogenesis has uniquely equipped plants to become developmentally responsive to their environment, affording opportunities to remodel organism growth and architecture to an extent not possible in other higher order eukaryotes. It is this developmental plasticity that makes the field of plant-microbe interactions an exceptionally fascinating venue in which to study symbiosis. This review article describes the various ways in which mutualistic microbes alter the growth, development, and architecture of the roots of their plant hosts. We first summarize general knowledge of root development, and then examine how association of plants with beneficial microbes affects these processes. Working our way inwards from the epidermis to the pericycle, this review dissects the cell biology and molecular mechanisms underlying plant-microbe interactions in a tissue-specific manner. We examine the ways in which microbes gain entry into the root, and modify this specialized organ for symbiont accommodation, with a particular emphasis on the colonization of root cortical cells. We present significant advances in our understanding of root-microbe interactions, and conclude our discussion by identifying questions pertinent to root endosymbiosis that at present remain unresolved.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BotanySame topicLegume Nitrogen Fixing SymbiosisFrench-language works237,207