Differential activation and suppression of potato defence responses by <i>Phytophthora infestans</i> isolates representing US‐1 and US‐8 genotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Defence responses were investigated in two potato cultivars with different levels of resistance to late blight, Russet Burbank (susceptible) and Kennebec (moderately resistant), after inoculation with single isolates representing Phytophthora infestans genotypes US‐1 (previously predominant, mildly aggressive) and US‐8 (currently predominant, highly aggressive). The accumulation of brown lignin‐like materials and an increase in the cell wall affinity to trypan blue 24 h after inoculation were observed in cv. Kennebec inoculated with US‐1, but not in Kennebec inoculated with US‐8, or cv. Russet Burbank inoculated with either US‐1 or US‐8. The expression of PAL‐1, HMG‐2, PR‐1 and PR‐5 was investigated in three leaf strata (local, proximal and distal) and at different times after inoculation, using SYBR real‐time RT‐PCR. The activation of these defence‐related genes was affected not only by P. infestans genotype, but also by the potato cultivar and the proximity to the inoculation site. These genes were up‐regulated earlier in Kennebec than in Russet Burbank and in response to US‐1 than to US‐8. Over all, the earliest and strongest up‐regulation of these genes occurred in Kennebec inoculated with US‐1. Furthermore, PAL‐1 and HMG‐2 were down‐regulated at the site of infection while such down‐regulation was not observed for PR‐1 or PR‐5 . In parallel, the accumulation level and location of phenolics and rishitin matched those of PAL‐1 and HMG‐2 transcripts, respectively. These results strongly suggest that changes in either the activation or suppression of defence responses by the pathogen shape the level of susceptibility of potato cultivars to late blight.
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".