MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979342008 · doi:10.1094/pdis-93-12-1265

Identification of Variants of the High Plains virus Infecting Wheat in Kansas

2009· article· en· W1979342008 on OpenAlexaff
Dallas L. Seifers, T. J. Martin, T. L. Harvey, S. Haber, Oleg V. Krokhin, Victor Spicer, S. Ying, Kenneth G. Standing

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCapsidPotyviridaeVirusAntiserumPlant virusVirologyMolecular massPolyacrylamide gel electrophoresisGel electrophoresisAmino acidPeptide sequenceMicrobiologyMolecular biologyGeneEnzymePotyvirusGeneticsAntibodyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The properties of two virus isolates (U04-82 and U04-83) obtained from two wheat (Triticum aestivum) plants expressing mosaic symptoms were investigated using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE), time-of-flight mass spectrometry (TOFMS), and infection of wheat with resistance to Wheat streak mosaic virus (WSMV). The coat protein mass was estimated by SDS-PAGE as approximately 32 kDa for U04-82 and 30 kDa for U04-83. The amino acid sequence of the coat protein of U04-82 was 99.6 and 85.5% identical to two isolates, ABC58222 and TX96, respectively, of High Plains virus (HPV) described from Texas. U04-82 was transmitted by wheat curl mites and caused significant yield reductions in wheat resistant to WSMV. U04-83 was actually two distinct virus isolates whose capsid protein amino acid sequences were only 57 and 50% similar to that of TX96. Antiserum prepared to a synthetic peptide from the sequence of the U04-83 isolate recognized the two U04-83 isolates, but not the U04-82 isolate.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.246
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 designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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