Polyclonal antisera to epacrid mycorrhizae and to <i>Hymenoscyphus ericae</i> display specificity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three polyclonal antisera produced in mice were used to investigate specificity and cross-reactivity between ericaceous and epacridaceous mycorrhizal fungi. One antiserum was to a culture of Hymenoscyphus ericae (Read) Korf and Kernan, the fungal endophyte of Calluna vulgaris (L.) Hull (Ericaceae). The other two were to peloton preparations from roots of Epacris impressa Labill. (Epacridaceae) from two sites (Cranbourne and Grampians) in Victoria, Australia. By immunofluorescence, all three antisera recognised H. ericae but not Oidiodendron griseum Roback, suggesting a serological relationship with the former endophyte. They also recognised 10 of the 12 fungal isolates tested, from mycorrhizal roots of E. impressa (Cranbourne), and all 4 isolates from Astroloma pinifolium (R. Br.) Benth. (Epacridaceae) (Grampians). Furthermore, none of the antisera recognised any of the nine common soil-inhabiting fungi selected for screening. Antisera recognised only unmelanized hyphae on epacrid and other plant roots taken from the wild. With plants from Cranbourne, all antisera except the Grampians antiserum recognised hyphae only on epacrid roots, demonstrating specificity. Hyphae on other plant roots were not recognised by any of the antisera. With plants from the Grampians, all antisera recognised some hyphae on both epacrid and other plant roots, except in two instances. The immunogold labelling indicates that the antisera are specific for fungi and do not recognise the plant. Since the fungal isolate forms true mycorrhizal structures, this suggests that there is a serological similarity between fungi forming epacrid mycorrhiza and those (H. ericae) forming ericoid mycorrhiza.Key words: ericoid mycorrhizae, Epacridaceae, polyclonal antibodies, immunofluorescence, immunogold.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".