MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981587802 · doi:10.1094/phyto-95-0779

Genes for Parasite-Specific, Nonhost Resistance in <i>Populus</i>

2005· article· en· W1981587802 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
George Newcombe

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytopathology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Parasitism and Resistance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulus trichocarpaBiologyAllopatric speciationSalicaceaeBotanyInterspecific competitionHost (biology)Powdery mildewPlant disease resistanceGeneGeneticsWoody plantGenomePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Nonhost resistance is hypothesized to protect plants in a nonspecific manner. For highly specialized parasites, this hypothesis applies not only to distantly related plants but also to resistant congeners of the host species. Congeners of Populus spp. were hybridized to create two interspecific hybrid poplar pedigrees (i.e., Populus trichocarpa x P. deltoides and P. trichocarpa x P. maximowiczii). The pedigrees were planted in a randomized, replicated "common garden" on Vancouver Island so that they were exposed to parasites of the native P. trichocarpa. Monogenic and oligogenic resistance to two ascomycetous, parasitic fungi (i.e., Venturia inopina and a Taphrina sp.) segregated in a parasite-specific manner in each pedigree. However, these resistance genes were not inherited from the native host, P. trichocarpa. Instead, resistance was inherited from the allopatric, nonhost congeners, P. deltoides (eastern cottonwood) and P. maximowiczii (Japanese poplar). Thus, we found that major genes condition parasite-specific, nonhost resistance, as has been true in earlier studies of this kind with additional parasites of Populus spp. The selective force responsible for evolutionary maintenance of such genes is unknown.

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 score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytopathologySame topicPlant Parasitism and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207