Inability to Catabolize Rhamnose by Sinorhizobium meliloti Rm1021 Affects Competition for Nodule Occupancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rhizobium leguminosarum strains unable to grow on rhamnose as a sole carbon source are less competitive for nodule occupancy. To determine if the ability to use rhamnose as a sole carbon source affects competition for nodule occupancy in Sinorhizobium meliloti, Tn5 mutants unable to use rhamnose as a sole carbon source were isolated. S. meliloti mutations affecting rhamnose utilization were found in two operons syntenous to those of R. leguminosarum. Although the S. meliloti Tn5 mutants were complemented using an R. leguminosarum cosmid that contains the entire wild-type rhamnose catabolic locus, complementation did not occur if the cosmids carried Tn5 insertions within the locus. Through a series of heterologous complementation experiments, enzyme assays, gene fusion, and transport experiments, we show that the S. meliloti regulator, RhaR, is dominant to its R. leguminosarum counterpart. In addition, the data support the hypothesis that the R. leguminosarum kinase is capable of directly phosphorylating rhamnose and rhamnulose, whereas the S. meliloti kinase does not possess rhamnose kinase activity. In nodule competition assays, S. meliloti mutants incapable of rhamnose transport were shown to be less competitive than the wild-type and had a decreased ability to bind plant roots in the presence of rhamnose. The data suggests that rhamnose catabolism is a general determinant in competition for nodule occupancy that spans across rhizobial species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".