MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017341397 · doi:10.1094/pdis-09-11-0728

First Report of Quinoa Downy Mildew Caused by <i>Peronospora variabilis</i> in the United States

2011· article· en· W2017341397 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anna L. Testen, J. M. McKemy, P. A. Backman

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Pathogens and Resistance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowny mildewSporangiumBiologyChenopodium quinoaChlorosisOosporeBotanySporeInoculationHorticultureInternal transcribed spacerIntergenic regionRibosomal RNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quinoa, Chenopodium quinoa Willd., is an Andean crop prized for its high nutritional value and adaptability to harsh environments. Quinoa is plagued by downy mildew caused by Peronospora variabilis Gäum (formerly Peronospora farinosa f. sp. chenopodii Byford) (1). Quinoa production has spread beyond native Andean ranges and quinoa downy mildew has been reported in India, Canada, and Denmark (1). During the summer of 2011, quinoa trials were established to determine the ability of quinoa to grow under Mid-Atlantic conditions and monitor for regional disease problems. In July, after cool, rainy conditions, downy mildew-like symptoms were observed on quinoa at research plots in Centre and Lancaster counties of Pennsylvania. Symptoms and signs consisted of irregularly shaped areas of foliar chlorosis or pink discoloration accompanied by dense, gray sporulation on both leaf surfaces. Sporangia were tan to gray-brown, semi-ovoid, often with a pedicel, mean length of 31 μm, and mean width of 23 μm. Sporangiophores branched dichotomously, and the terminal branchlets curved and tapered to a point. Orange oospores were present in field samples of leaf tissue. DNA was extracted from infected foliar tissue and sporangial suspensions. A seminested PCR protocol (2) was used to obtain partial internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences of six Peronospora isolates. The sequences shared 99% maximum identity to a known P. variabilis accession (FM863721.2) in GenBank. A voucher specimen was deposited into the U.S. National Fungus Collections (BPI 882064). Pathogenicity of each of two strains of P. variabilis was confirmed by inoculating quinoa with sporangia (4). Sporangia were shaken from leaves in sterile distilled water and the suspension was filtered through cheesecloth. A 0.01% Tween solution was added and the suspension diluted to 10 3 sporangia/ml. With an atomizer, a 10-ml sporangial suspension (or sterile water for noninoculated control plants) was sprayed onto one flat of 18 2-week-old quinoa plants, and relative humidity was increased to saturation using a humidity dome for 24 h. After 1 week, chlorosis and pink discoloration were noted on leaves of inoculated quinoa, and after 18 h of subsequent increased humidity (&gt;95% relative humidity), dense gray sporulation was observed. No symptoms were noted on noninoculated control plants. Sporangia and sporangiophores were examined morphologically and confirmed to be P. variabilis, confirming Koch's postulates. For culture maintenance, 2-week-old quinoa leaves were placed onto a sporangial suspension on top of 1% water agar and maintained in a growth chamber at 20°C with 16 h of light per day. Quinoa downy mildew is seedborne (3) and initial infections may have occurred from oospores in the pericarp, despite intensive processing of consumable quinoa seeds to remove saponins. To our knowledge, this is the first report of quinoa downy mildew in the United States and also the first report of P. variabilis in the United States. References: (1) Y. Choi et al. Mycopathologia 169:403, 2010. (2) D. Cooke et al. Fungal Genet. Biol. 30:17, 2000. (3) S. Danielson et al. Seed Sci. Technol. 32:91, 2004. (4) J. Ochoa et al. Plant Pathol. 48:425, 1999.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations23
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicPlant Pathogens and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207