Segregation following interspecific transfer of isolated nuclei between <i>Phytophthora parasitica</i> and <i>P. capsici</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nuclei isolated from metalaxyl-resistant (MR) protoplasts of Phytophthora parasitica were transferred into chloroneb-resistant (CnR) protoplasts of Phytophthora capsici and vice versa, with an average success rate of 2.6 x 10(-4) (protoplasts with donor nuclei/regenerated protoplasts), using a selective medium containing only the fungicide tolerated by the nuclear donor. No colonies appeared when self-fusion products of donor nuclei or recipient protoplasts were exposed to the selective medium. Colonies produced by the nuclear transfer formed sectors commonly, and differed from the parental types in appearance. All the zoospores produced by the nuclear hybrids were of normal size, and one-fifth of them contained both MR and CnR genes. Since zoospores are mostly uninucleate, these results indicated the occurrence of chromosome re-assortment or mitotic crossing-over following the production of transitory tetraploids, followed by diploidization during zoosporogenesis, thus suggesting the completion of events leading to a parasexual cycle. Hyphal fragment cultures from a nuclear hybrid tested showed considerable variation in growth rate, mycelial morphology, and level of resistance to metalaxyl, indicating uneven distribution and continuous segregation of different types of nuclei in mycelia during vegetative growth.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".