MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001254827 · doi:10.1080/07060660009500470

Detecting<i>Xanthomonas axonopodis</i>pv.<i>manihotis</i>in cassava true seeds by nested polymerase chain reaction assay

2000· article· en· W2001254827 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sandra S. Ojeda, Valérie Verdier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Pathology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Pathogenic Bacteria Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolymerase chain reactionNested polymerase chain reactionBacterial blightBiologyPathogenGermplasmInoculationXanthomonasSowingBacterial diseaseHorticultureMicrobiologyBacteriaGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cassava bacterial blight, caused by Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. manihotis (Xam), is a particularly destructive disease in South America and Africa. Because of quarantine procedures, international exchange of cassava germplasm is limited and occurs through true seeds or material propagated in vitro. The success of a cassava-seed certification program depends on the availability of reliable tests to detect the pathogen in true seeds and vegetative planting materials. We developed a nested polymerase chain reaction assay to detect the pathogen in cassava true seeds. The internal primers directed the amplification of a fragment of 509 base pairs in all 12 Xam strains tested, whereas no amplification product was obtained from any of the 17 strains of other Xanthomonas pathovars tested. Nested polymerase chain reaction worked well for Xam detection from cultured cells from artificially inoculated seeds and naturally infected seeds. The best detection level allowed to detect a presence as low as one to two viable cells per reaction. This technique was specific, sensitive, and rapid for detecting Xam in cassava true seeds.

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)0.001
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 score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Citations17
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant PathologySame topicPlant Pathogenic Bacteria StudiesFrench-language works237,207