MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296389745 · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2022.999988

Antibiotic resistance in plant growth promoting bacteria: A comprehensive review and future perspectives to mitigate potential gene invasion risks

2022· review· en· W4296389745 on OpenAlexaff
Ismail Mahdi, Nidal Fahsi, Mohamed Hijri, Mansour Sobeh

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Microbiology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersUniversité Mohammed VI Polytechnique
KeywordsBiologyBiotechnologyAntibiotic resistanceBiofertilizerBacteriaResistance (ecology)Gene transferPlant growthEcologyGeneAgronomyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) are endowed with several attributes that can be beneficial for host plants. They opened myriad doors toward green technology approach to reduce the use of chemical inputs, improve soil fertility, and promote plants' health. However, many of these PGPB harbor antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs). Less attention has been given to multi-resistant bacterial bioinoculants which may transfer their ARGs to native soil microbial communities and other environmental reservoirs including animals, waters, and humans. Therefore, large-scale inoculation of crops by ARGs-harboring bacteria could worsen the evolution and dissemination of antibiotic resistance and aggravate the negative impacts on such ecosystem and ultimately public health. Their introduction into the soil could serve as ARGs invasion which may inter into the food chain. In this review, we underscore the antibiotic resistance of plant-associated bacteria, criticize the lack of consideration for this phenomenon in the screening and application processes, and provide some recommendations as well as a regulation framework relating to the development of bacteria-based biofertilizers to aid maximizing their value and applications in crop improvement while reducing the risks of ARGs invasion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations86
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MicrobiologySame topicPlant-Microbe Interactions and ImmunityFrench-language works237,207