Genetic analysis of pathogenic and nonpathogenic <i>Fusarium oxysporum</i> from tomato plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forty-three Fusarium oxysporum strains and one Fusarium solani strain were analyzed for genetic diversity. These strains represent a wide range of geographic locations and were collected primarily from tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) roots. Among all 43 F. oxysporum strains, 21 were not pathogenic to tomato, 20 were pathogenic, including 13 strains of Fusarium oxysporum lycopersici and seven strains of Fusarium oxysporum radicis-lycopersici, and two were other formae speciales of the fungus. Genetic diversity of all 43 strains was assessed by vegetative compatibility group (VCG), sequence analysis of the rDNA internal transcribed spacers (ITS1 and ITS2) and the 5.8S rRNA gene, and amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP). Most of the F. o. lycopersici strains were assigned to VCG 0030, while most nonpathogenic ones were incompatible with each other. ITS region analysis grouped the strains into four clusters. The nonpathogenic F. oxysporum strains were in two groups, while the pathogenic strains were placed in two different groups. Pathogenic and nonpathogenic strains were also separated into different clusters based on AFLP data, although some nonpathogenic strains grouped with pathogenic strains. The population of pathogenic strains was less diverse than that of the nonpathogenic strains, suggesting that the pathogenic strains were possibly of monophyletic origin. For both pathogenic and nonpathogenic F. oxysporum strains, no relationship was observed between the genetic profiles and geographic origin; this may indicate that pathogens did not originate independently at each locality.Key words: Fusarium oxysporum, VCG, rDNA (ITS) sequence, AFLP.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".