MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974490912 · doi:10.1080/07060660109506977

Infection by <i>Colletotrichum truncatum</i> in resistant and susceptible lentil genotypes

2002· article· en· W1974490912 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
G. Chongo, B. D. Gossen, C.C. Bernier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Pathology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersWestern Grains Research Foundation
KeywordsAppressoriumVirulenceBiologyConidiumInoculationCultivarHyphaPathogenColletotrichumGenotypeMicrobiologyBotanyHorticultureGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The process of infection of lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) by Colletotrichum truncatum (Schwein.) Andrus and W.D. Moore was studied on lentil on a partially resistant line and a susceptible cultivar, using one highly virulent and one moderately virulent isolate. Leaves and stem tissue were sampled at regular intervals from 1 to 144 h postinoculation (hpi). Infection was characterized by a symptomless phase lasting 3 days and a destructive phase between 3 and 6 days after inoculation. Conidia germinated within 3–6 hpi and formed appressoria at 6–12 hpi. Infection pegs from the appressoria penetrated the cuticle and epidermal cells directly. Hyphae in host tissues grew inter- and intra-cellularly, starting at 24 hpi. Differences in pathogen development on the two lentil genotypes became apparent at 48 hpi. In the resistant line, deposits of material stained with aniline blue were prominent during infection by the moderately virulent isolate, but were not produced during infection by the highly virulent isolate. No deposits were observed in the susceptible cultivar. Also, hyphal spread was slower and phenolic compounds accumulated more quickly in the resistant line, resulting in fewer, smaller lesions than in the susceptible cultivar.

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 score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations33
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant PathologySame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207