MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022497291 · doi:10.1080/09583150500186878

Rapid molecular technique for identification of a biological control agent <i>Rhodosporidium diobovatum</i>

2005· article· en· W2022497291 on OpenAlexaff
Yu Cao, R.S. Utkhede

Bibliographic record

VenueBiocontrol Science and Technology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersChinese Government Scholarship
KeywordsBiologyYeastMolecular biologyBiological pest controlGenBankPichiaDot blotDigoxigeninOligonucleotideDNAMicrobiologyGeneBotanyBiochemistryPichia pastorisRecombinant DNAGene expressionIn situ hybridization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The purpose of this study was to develop a rapid molecular technique for identification of the biological control agent, Rhodosporidium diobovatum. DNA from all yeast cultures described below was extracted, amplified by PCR using primers specific to septate fungi, and fixed to nylon membranes. Using sequence information obtained from the GenBank database, Rhodosporidium diobovatum-specific oligonucleotides were designed and, after labeling with digoxigenin-d-UTP, were used as probes in a dot-blot hybridization assay. After preliminary testing, two probes were selected for further study. For probe RD3, a positive reaction was obtained at 38, 42 and 48°C with R. diobovatum in pure culture. Other yeast isolates such as Rhodosporidium toruloides, R. fluviale, R. babjevae, R. sphaerocarpum, R. kratochvilovae, R. azoricum, Pichia anomala, and some common greenhouse pathogens tested gave a negative result. The other probe (RD1) reacted with two species, R. diobovatum and R. babjevae at 42°C. The present dot-blot assay can be used reliably to identify the biocontrol agent, Rhodosporidium diobovatum, from pure culture and plant tissue.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.239
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiocontrol Science and TechnologySame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207