MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3119144728 · doi:10.22215/etd/2015-11169

Distribution of antimicrobial lipopeptides in Bacillus and Pseudomonas spp., two genera with antagonistic effects against plant pathogens

2015· dissertation· en· W3119144728 on OpenAlexaff
Rowida Mohamed

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurfactinLipopeptideAntimicrobialBiologyMicrobiologyBacillus (shape)MyceliumPseudomonasBacteriaBiological pest controlBacillus subtilisBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suppressive soils, composts, and compost teas have previously shown inhibitory effects against plant disease.A major reason for this suppressiveness has been their beneficial microbial populations.The present study was carried out to investigate the inhibitory activity of forty bacteria isolated from these three sources against the mycelial growth of six plant pathogens.Thirty-eight isolates inhibited at least one of the pathogens whereas sixteen of the isolates inhibited all the pathogens (36% average inhibition).Crude lipopeptides extracts were precipitated from bacterial liquid cultures.All tested lipopeptide samples inhibited the mycelial growth or conidial germination of at least one of the pathogens.Known antimicrobial lipopeptides in selected samples were identified by LC-MS.Results showed that all Bacillus and Bacillus-related spp.produced one or more lipopeptides from the fengycin, iturin, and surfactin families.In addition, certain Pseudomonas spp.produced lipopeptides from the amphisin and putisolvin families.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity→French-language works237,207→