Regulation of mating genes during arbuscular mycorrhizal isolate co-existence—where is the evidence?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent study published by Mateus et al. [1] claimed that 18 "mating-related" genes are differentially expressed in the model arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus (AMF) Rhizophagus irregularis when genetically distinct fungal strains co-colonize a host plant. To clarify the level of evidence for this interesting conclusion, we first aimed to validate the functional annotation of these 18 R. irregularis genes using orthology predictions. These analyses revealed that, although sequence relationship exists, only 2 of the claimed 18 R. irregularis mating genes are potential orthologues to validated fungal mating genes. We also investigated the RNA-seq data from Mateus et al. [1] using classical RNA-seq methods and statistics. This analysis found that the over-expression during strain co-existence was not significant at the typical cut-off of the R. irregularis strains DAOM197198 and B1 in plants. Overall, we do not find convincing evidence that the genes involved have functions in mating, or that they are reproducibly up or down regulated during co-existence in plants.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".