MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410952578 · doi:10.3389/fpls.2025.1529859

Bacillus and Paenibacillus as plant growth-promoting bacteria in soybean and cannabis

2025· review· en· W4410952578 on OpenAlexafffund
Haleema Tariq, Sowmyalakshmi Subramanian, Anja Geitmann, Donald L. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Plant Science · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersGovernment of CanadaBioFuelNet Canada
KeywordsPaenibacillus polymyxaPaenibacillusBiologyBiofertilizerAbiotic stressBiotechnologyRhizobacteriaBacteriaAgronomyRhizosphere

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many agrochemicals designed to help plants withstand abiotic and biotic stresses can negatively impact the environment. Soil, as an essential natural resource, offers plants organic matter, nutrients, and microbial diversity to thrive in challenging environmental conditions. The soil contains plant growth-promoting bacteria that play an important role in plant/crop productivity, assisting plants through a variety of mechanisms, including nitrogen fixation, phosphate solubilization, phytohormone production, induction of resistance against a wide range of pathogens, and production of microbe-to-plant signals that regulate aspects of plant responses to stress. Plant growth-promoting bacteria such as Bacillus and Paenibacillus can contribute to sustainable agriculture by enhancing nutrient uptake, acting as biocontrol agents, and producing lytic enzymes with the potential to disrupt or destroy pathogenic organisms in important agricultural and medicinal crops including soybean and cannabis. This review explores the mechanisms of action of plant growth-promoting bacteria, focusing on Bacillus and Paenibacillus species, and their potential to enhance, optimize plant growth and promote sustainable agriculture.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations34
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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