MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6977048665 · doi:10.60692/z4e7h-0nk13

Biological control potential of worrisome wheat blast disease by the seed endophytic bacilli

2024· article· en· W6977048665 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHistory of Computing Technologies
Canadian institutionsGlobal Institute for Water Security
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntibiosisBiological pest controlBacillus subtilisSeedlingBacilliCropPathogenBacteriaAntimicrobial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crop production often faces challenges from plant diseases, and biological control emerges as an effective, environmentally friendly, cost-effective, and sustainable alternative to chemical control. Wheat blast disease caused by fungal pathogen Magnaporthe oryzae Triticum (MoT), is a potential catastrophic threat to global food security. This study aimed to identify potential bacterial isolates from rice and wheat seeds with inhibitory effects against MoT. In dual culture and seedling assays, three bacterial isolates (BTS-3, BTS-4, and BTLK6A) demonstrated effective suppression of MoT growth and reduced wheat blast severity when artificially inoculated at the seedling stage. Genome phylogeny identified these isolates as Bacillus subtilis (BTS-3) and B. velezensis (BTS-4 and BTLK6A). Whole-genome analysis revealed the presence of genes responsible for controlling MoT through antimicrobial defense, antioxidant defense, cell wall degradation, and induced systemic resistance (ISR). Taken together, our results suggest that the suppression of wheat blast disease by seed endophytic B. subtilis (BTS-3) and B. velezensis (BTS-4 and BTLK6A) is liked with antibiosis and induced systemic resistance to wheat plants. A further field validation is needed before recommending these endophytic bacteria for biological control of wheat blast.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information SystemSame topicHistory of Computing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207