MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4234769841 · doi:10.1139/cjm-47-3-229

Variability and interactions between endophytic bacteria and fungi isolated from leaf tissues of citrus rootstocks

2001· article· en· W4234769841 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Welington Luiz Araújo, Walter Maccheroni, C. I. Aguilar‐Vildoso, Paulo A.V. Barroso, Halha Ostrensky Saridakis, João Lúcio de Azevedo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRootstockBiologyBotanyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fungi and bacteria were isolated from surface disinfected leaf tissues of several citrus rootstocks. The principal bacterial species isolated were Alcaligenes sp., Bacillus spp. (including B. cereus, B. lentus, B. megaterium, B. pumilus, and B. subtilis), Burkholderia cepacia, Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens, Enterobacter cloacae, Methylobacterium extorquens, and Pantoea agglomerans, with P. agglomerans and B. pumilus being the most frequently isolated species. The most abundant fungal species were Colletotrichum gloeosporioides, Guignardia citricarpa, and Cladosporium sp. Genetic variability between 36 endophytic bacterial isolates was analysed by the random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) technique, which indicated that B. pumilus isolates were more diverse than P. agglomerans isolates, although genetic diversity was not related to the host plants. In vitro interaction studies between G. citricarpa isolates and the most frequently isolated endophytic bacteria showed that metabolites secreted by G. citricarpa have an inhibitory growth effect on some Bacillus species, and a stimulatory growth effect on P. agglomerans.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations55
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Microbiology→Same topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases→French-language works237,207→