Growth-promoting and biocontrol features of Pantoea ananatis BRT175 in tomato
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Pantoea ananatis BRT175 presents PGPR and biocontrol traits in vitro. • It promotes tomato growth in both growth chamber and greenhouse conditions. • It protects tomato against Botrytis cinerea at both local and systemic scales. • Ananatosides contribute to the antifungal activity of this strain. Beneficial bacteria belonging to Pantoea spp. and their interactions with plants have recently attracted growing interest for their beneficial effects, especially in promoting plant growth and health. In this study, we evaluated the growth-promoting and induced resistance activities of Pantoea ananatis strain BRT175 in tomato. In vitro assays revealed that this strain exhibits different beneficial traits, including phosphate solubilization, siderophore production, and IAA synthesis. These traits were further supported in silico by the presence of corresponding genes annotated in P. ananatis BRT175 genome. The capacity of this strain to significantly promote tomato growth was demonstrated under both growth chamber and greenhouse conditions. This bacterium also showed significant biocontrol activity through its antifungal effect against Botrytis cinerea . Interestingly, P. ananatis BRT175-derived ananatosides, a group of amphiphilic glycolipids, also showed an antifungal effect against B. cinerea . These glycolipids could therefore act as bacterial determinants contributing to protection against the pathogen. In addition, both root and leaf treatments with the bacterium resulted in a significant reduction of necrotic symptoms, suggesting that P. ananatis BRT175 potentially triggers systemic resistance of tomato. At the leaf level, P. ananatis BRT175 may displays a multifaceted protective effect by combining antifungal properties, competition for nutrients, and stimulation of tomato systemic resistance.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".