MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Occurrence of <i>Cherry Virus A</i> in the UK

2001· article· en· W1528786568 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Melissa Kirby, A.N. Adams

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Pathology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPrunusBark (sound)HorticulturePrunus cerasusBotanyPrimer (cosmetics)Sour cherryCultivarEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cherry virus A (CVA), a recently described member of the genus Capillovirus, was first reported in Prunus cerasus (Jelkmann, 1995). It is widespread in both Germany and Canada (Eastwell & Bernardy, 1998; James & Jelkmann, 1998). In the autumn, leaf and bark material were collected from 16 cherry trees of different UK origin growing at HRI-East Malling. RNA was extracted from these samples using a modified protocol based on the Qiagen RNeasy kit (Quiagen Ltd., Crawley, RH10 2AX, UK) (MacKenzie et al., 1997). RT–PCR detection of CVA was carried out according to James & Jelkmann (1998), except that the addition of Extender PCR additive (Stratagene Europa, 1101 CB Amsterdam Zuidoorst, the Netherlands) was not necessary for successful amplification using primer CVA1 (James & Jelkmann, 1998) in combination with a newly designed primer CVA3. CVA was found in leaf and bark material taken from 15 of the 16 sweet cherry trees. This is the first record of (i) the presence of CVA in the UK and (ii) the ability to detect CVA in dormant material. No data are available on the impact of CVA on fruit yield from sweet cherry orchards, yet it appears to be ubiquitous in the UK. CVA is graft-transmissible, and the only tree that tested negative for CVA was one grown from seed. CVA may not cause disease in these trees, but it is possibly deleterious as a synergist necessary for disease development. This work provides a starting point for research on the occurrence of the virus in UK planting material and its possible involvement in the aetiology of cherry diseases.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant PathologySame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207