Light and electron microscopic observations of the infection of <i>Camellia sasanqua</i> by the fungus <i>Exobasidum camelliae</i> var. <i>gracilis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Only a very small percentage of the shoots of the numerous Camellia sasanqua Thunb. plants examined in this study were infected by Exobasidium camelliae var. gracilis Shirai, and prior to the onset of new leaf formation in the spring, it was impossible to distinguish these shoots from healthy shoots with the naked eye. However, beginning in early April, an infected shoot gave rise to a group of tightly clustered, pale-green leaves that were significantly larger and thicker than the dark-green healthy leaves. Light and transmission electron microscopic observations revealed the presence of intercellular hyphae of E. camelliae var. gracilis in the apical meristems of shoots that gave rise to enlarged infected leaves. Very slender intercellular hyphae were observed between the tightly packed cells of the apical meristem as well as between the cells of the tunica that covered the meristem. Hyphae also filled many of the intercellular spaces in the stem immediately below the apical meristem. Some hyphae formed distinctive haustoria that protruded for short distances into the invaded host cells. Hyphae also were present in the leaf primordia and proliferated in the intercellular spaces while the primordium differentiated into a leaf. Eventually a distinct pseudoparenchymatous layer of intercellular hyphae developed some four to six cell layers above the lower epidermis. This layer then gave rise to the basidia that made up the hymenium of E. camelliae var. gracilis. As basidia developed, the underlying cell layers of the leaf separated from the overlying hymenium and eventually sloughed away to expose the basidia. Localized infections of random leaves also were observed. In many cases only a small part of a leaf was infected. Localized infections also culminated in successful hymenium development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".