Genomic characterization of three bacterial isolates antagonistic to the pea root rot pathogen <i>Aphanomyces euteiches</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microorganisms living in soil and rhizosphere or inside plants can promote plant growth and health. Genomic characterization of beneficial microbes could shed light on their special features. Through extensive field survey across Saskatchewan, Canada, followed by in vitro and greenhouse characterization, we identified several bacterial isolates antagonistic to pea root rot pathogen Aphanomyces euteiches. In this study, the genomes of three isolates— Pseudomonas sp. rhizo 66 (PD-S66), Pseudomonas synxantha rhizo 25 (Ps-S25), and Serratia sp. root 2 (TS-R2)—were sequenced, assembled, and annotated. Genome size of PD-S66 was 6 279 416 bp with 65 contigs, 59.32% GC content, and 5653 predicted coding sequences (CDS). Genome size of Ps-S25 was 6 058 437 bp with 66 contigs, a GC content of 60.08%, and 5575 predicted CDS. The genome size of TS-R2 was 5 282 152 bp, containing 26 contigs, a GC content of 56.17%, and 4956 predicted CDS. For the identification of the isolates, digital DNA–DNA hybridization (dDDH) and average nucleotide identity (ANI) values were determined, which confirmed PD-S66 and TS-R2 as potential new species, belonging to Pseudomonas and Serratia genera, respectively, while Ps-S25 belongs to species Pseudomonas synxantha. Biosynthetic gene clusters were predicted using antiSMASH. The genomic data provided insight into the genetics and biochemical pathways supporting the antagonistic activity against A. euteiches of these isolates.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".