MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W947814427 · doi:10.2134/agronmonogr48.c11

Communication in the Tripartite Symbiosis Formed by Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi, Rhizobia and Legume Plants: A Review

2005· review· en· W947814427 on OpenAlexaff
Pedro M. Antunes, M. J. Goss

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy monograph/Agronomy · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLegume Nitrogen Fixing Symbiosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhizobiaSymbiosisBiologyBradyrhizobiumBotanyNitrogen fixationRoot noduleSeedlingNod factorColonizationRhizobiumFabaceaeGeneBacteriaMicrobiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter focuses on details of the communication between the symbionts prior to establishment of the tripartite symbiosis. Specific flavonoids are necessary to stimulate nodulation and N2 fixation. Some of these signal compounds have also been shown to stimulate mycorrhizal colonization directly. Furthermore, there has been some indication that flavonoid root accumulation is enhanced in response to arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and rhizobia. Different types of flavonoids are exuded by roots of seedling legumes and are involved in chemotactic responses and the activation of nod genes of rhizobia. Flavonoids participate in the establishment of the tripartite symbiosis between soybean, Bradyrhizobium, and AMF. Interactions among participants in the tripartite symbiosis have a significant impact on N2 fixation. Such impact is likely to depend significantly on the timing of early colonization events by both symbiotic microbes due to their use of common transduction pathways.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations27
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgronomy monograph/AgronomySame topicLegume Nitrogen Fixing SymbiosisFrench-language works237,207