MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021498586 · doi:10.1094/pdis.2001.85.2.220

A PCR-Based Assay to Detect <i>Rhynchosporium secalis</i> in Barley Seed

2001· article· en· W2021498586 on OpenAlexaff
H. K. Lee, J. P. Tewari, T. Kelly Turkington

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPrimer (cosmetics)Hordeum vulgarePolymerase chain reactionDNAHomology (biology)DNA sequencingGeneticsGeneBotanyPoaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based diagnostic assay was developed to detect Rhynchosporium secalis, the barley scald fungus, in barley seed. Species-specific primers were designed based on sequence data of a region consisting of the 5.8S RNA gene and internal transcribed spacers 1 and 2 of R. secalis. The sequenced regions showed 100% homology between the two R. secalis isolates and 93% homology between R. secalis and R. orthosporum. Five sets of synthesized oligonucleotide primers were tested for their specificity using 29 isolates of R. secalis of diverse geographic origins and from different barley cultivars. In addition, DNA extracts from 22 species of microbes either taxonomically related to or from the same niche as R. secalis were tested as negative controls. Among five sets of primers, a primer set, RS8 and RS9, was selected for use in detecting R. secalis because it amplified a 264-bp fragment from the DNA of all R. secalis isolates but not the DNA from other species used for validation of the specificity of this primer set. This primer set was also used to detect R. secalis in barley seed and successfully amplified the predicted size of the DNA fragment in the infected material. PCR detection of as little as 1 to 10 pg of R. secalis DNA was possible. The method described here requires 1 day for completion, compared to 10 days required for the cultural method.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.864

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations41
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207