MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Making Fungal-Photobiont Symbioses in the Lab: Past, Present, and Future of the Elusive In Vitro Lichen

2025· review· en· W4414085337 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Microbiology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLichen and fungal ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLichenAxenicSymbiosisThallusIn vitroAlgae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to synthesize lichen symbioses in vitro from pure cultures of transformable symbionts would be a game changer for experiments to identify the metabolic interplay that underpins the success of lichens. However, despite multiple reports of successful lichen resynthesis, no lichen lab model system exists today. We reviewed 150 years of in vitro lichen studies and found that the term resynthesis is applied to many types of fungal-photobiont cocultures that do not resemble lichens. Some of the most lichen-like results, for their part, were obtained from nonaxenic tissue culture. Only a few studies reported obtaining natural-looking lichens from axenic input cultures, but all appear to have been isolated successes obtained against the background of extensive contamination. We suggest revisiting resynthesis experiments in light of recent advances in our understanding of lichen microbial composition to test whether in vitro lichen morphogenesis requires microbial inputs beyond those of the canonical fungal and algal symbionts.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.276 · 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