Characterization of <i>Phomopsis</i> spp. Infecting Grapevines in the Great Lakes Region of North America
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Seventy-five isolates of Phomopsis were obtained from grapes (Vitis spp.) with Phomopsis cane and leaf spot symptoms in Ohio, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Ontario (Canada). Four isolates from California and one from Europe were also included in the study. Isolates were grouped on the basis of DNA sequences from intron regions in the translation elongation factor 1-α and calmodulin genes. According to DNA sequence comparisons with the type isolate, all isolates except two (OH-48 and CAL-5) were determined to be P. viticola, confirming the etiology of this disease in the Great Lakes region. Thirty representative isolates were evaluated for mycelial growth rate in vitro, conidial size, and pathogenicity on grapevine (Vitis interspecific hybrid 'Seyval') leaves and internodes. A subsample of 13 isolates was also evaluated for pathogenicity on fruit and rachises. All isolates of P. viticola caused disease on grape but differed in virulence. Among P. viticola isolates, virulence on leaves and internodes was positively correlated, and virulence on fruit and rachises was positively correlated, but there was no relationship between ratings on vegetative versus reproductive grape tissues. Some isolates that were not virulent on leaves or internodes were highly virulent on fruit and rachises and vice versa, indicating some specialization with respect to host tissues. However, differences were mostly of a quantitative nature, which makes it difficult if not impossible to assign biotypes. Among P. viticola isolates, virulence on fruit and rachises was positively correlated with mycelial growth rate in vitro. For the two isolates that were not P. viticola, the internal transcribed spacer regions of the nuclear ribosomal DNA were sequenced for identification purposes. Based on the best match available in GenBank, CAL-5 was determined to be close to Diaporthe phaseolorum, while the sequence of OH-48 matched that of Phomopsis sp. from Eucommia ulmoides in China. Both isolates had shorter alpha conidia and significantly higher mycelial growth rates than the P. viticola isolates, and were not or only slightly pathogenic to Vitis interspecific hybrid 'Seyval'.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».