The effect of wheat genotype on the microbiome is more evident in roots and varies through time
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crop breeding has traditionally ignored the plant-associated microbial communities. Considering the interactions between plant genotype and associated microbiota is of value since different genotypes of the same crop often harbor distinct microbial communities which can influence the plant phenotype. However, recent studies have reported contrasting results, which led us to hypothesize that the effect of genotype is constrained by growth stages, sampling year and plant compartment. To test this hypothesis, we sampled bulk soil, rhizosphere soil and roots of 10 field-grown wheat genotypes, twice per year, for 4 years. DNA was extracted and regions of the bacterial 16 S rRNA and CPN60 genes and the fungal ITS region were amplified and sequenced. The effect of genotype was highly contingent on the time of sampling and on the plant compartment sampled. Only for a few sampling dates, were the microbial communities significantly different across genotypes. The effect of genotype was most often significant for root microbial communities. The three marker genes used provided a highly coherent picture of the effect of genotype. Taken together, our results confirm that microbial communities in the plant environment strongly vary across compartments, growth stages, and years, and that this can mask the effect of genotype.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it