Isolation and Culture of Epichloё sp. for Re-Infection of Endophyte-Free Southeastern Wildrye (Elymus glabriflorus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mutualistic relationships between endophytic fungi and grasses have shown to improve the hardiness of the host. This relationship is common in grasses, including native cool-season grasses that are important in both forage and grassland ecosystems. Elymus genus members, such as Canada wildrye (CAWR), commonly host the endophytic fungi, Epichloё, while southeastern wildrye (SEWR) may not. In this study, seed of ten Elymus accessions and seed and leaves from local SEWR were assessed for endophyte infection. Infection status was confirmed via seed squash and leaf peel techniques and assessed using microscopy. Seed of one SEWR and nine CAWR accessions were assessed for endophyte infection by softening seeds in NaOH. Softened seeds were stained and squashed between a microscope slide and coverslip. Infection status was determined by scanning for mycelia within each seed. Leaf peels were excised from SEWR, stained and observed. Infection status was determined by scanning for mycelia in epidermal cells. Following assessment, all SEWR germplasm was E-, while six CAWR accessions were E+. Endophyte-infected seeds were germinated and pseudostems were used to isolate the endophyte by sterilizing the pseudostems and placing them on PDA in a dark germination chamber until endophyte growth. Isolated endophyte was used to infect E- SEWR. Infection status of SEWR was determined using leaf peels and PCR. This research will help determine if forced endophyte infection can be performed in SEWR.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".