MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971243359 · doi:10.1139/b05-020

Light and electron microscopy of teliospores and teliospore germination in the rust fungus <i>Coleosporium ipomoeae</i>

2005· article· en· W1971243359 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Charles W. Mims, Elizabeth A. Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicYeasts and Rust Fungi Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSporeBiologyBotanyGerminationUrediniosporeSporangiumSpore germination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A combination of light, scanning, and transmission electron microscopy was used to examine teliospores and teliospore germination in the rust fungus Coleosporium ipomoeae (Schw.) Burrill, a parasite of the wild morning glory Ipomoea coccinea L. Telia developed on abaxial surfaces of infected leaves and appeared as orange, waxy crusts usually associated with uredinia. Mature teliospores were cylindrical to slightly clavate in shape and thin-walled. The presence of chitin in the spore wall was demonstrated using wheat germ agglutinin gold labeling. Teliospores were surrounded by an electron-dense extracellular material. Each spore possessed a large prominent nucleus containing synaptonemal complexes indicative of prophase I meiotic nuclei. Following hydration, the nucleus of each spore completed meiosis and the spore was divided into four uninucleate compartments by the formation of three transverse septa. Each compartment gave rise to a germ tube into which the nucleus and cytoplasm migrated. Germ tubes developed into long slender sterigmata that grew through the extracellular material within the telium to become exposed on the leaf surface. A basidiospore then developed at the tip of each sterigma. Once the nucleus moved from the sterigma into the spore, a septum formed to delimit the spore from the tip of the sterigma.Key words: fungal spores, transmission and scanning electron microscopy, high pressure freezing.

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 score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations12
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicYeasts and Rust Fungi StudiesFrench-language works237,207