MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A review of genetic approaches to the management of blister rust in white pines

2010· review· en· W1956304590 on OpenAlexaff
John King, A. David, David Noshad, Jason A. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueForest Pathology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicYeasts and Rust Fungi Studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceGovernment of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyResistance (ecology)White (mutation)Host (biology)Rust (programming language)CankerHost resistancePlant disease resistanceTree breedingGeneBotanyGeneticsWoody plantEcologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Since introduced a century ago,Cronartium ribicolahas devastated many populations of North American white pines. However, significant genetic resistance to white pine blister rust occurs naturally and can be exploited. In this review, we discuss the progress and different approaches to breeding for resistance in North American white pines. Three broad categories of resistance are: (1) ontogenetic resistance, (2) R‐gene resistance and (3) partial resistance. Ontogenetic resistance is associated with increased host age and indicated by higher susceptibility to infection in primary needles and young seedlings then in grafts and older trees. R‐gene resistance (major gene resistance) is an example of the classic gene‐for‐gene system common in many rust diseases. R‐gene resistance provides immunity but may not be durable. Host resistance and the corresponding rust virulence which defeats it are well described for sugar pine and western white pine. Host plants with partial resistance are able to retard or tolerate disease development without eliminating the pathogen. Partial resistance is also called slow‐rusting resistance or low‐level resistance and is revealed in seedlings by several responses, including slow‐canker‐growth, difficult‐to‐infect, needle‐shed and bark‐reaction. Most of these seedling responses are presumed to be multigenic; but needle‐shed may be controlled by recessive genes. Long‐term, field trials for verification of screening and selection results are sparse. Although 100% higher survival of selected material over unselected occurs in some trials, mortality is high under conditions of high hazard and heavy inoculum load. In several, long‐term trials, some full‐sib crosses expressed a strong phenotypic resistance that indicates specific combining ability between complimentary parents. These and other observations suggest that we might yet find strong and durable resistance. Study of Eurasian white pines infected by blister rust fungi could help us better understand endemic pathosystems. Different strategies are identified for deploying material selected for either R‐gene or partial resistance. Current research suggests that resistance is more complex than previously modelled, but new molecular techniques offer useful methods for investigating the white pine blister rust pathosystem.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations79
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForest PathologySame topicYeasts and Rust Fungi StudiesFrench-language works237,207