MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Genetic transformation, electrophoretic karyotyping and isolation of insertional mutants in the tree pathogenic fungus <i>Neonectria galligena</i>

2003· article· en· W2022732151 on OpenAlexafffund
Philippe Tanguay, J. Coupal, Louis Bernier

Bibliographic record

VenueForest Pathology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsBiologyHygromycin BProtoplastMutantTransformation (genetics)PlasmidSouthern blotMolecular biologyAgarose gel electrophoresisMyceliumgenomic DNAMicrobiologyGeneBiochemistryBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The ascomycete tree pathogen Neonectria galligena was transformed using several plasmid vectors containing the bacterial hygromycin phosphotransferase gene ( hph ) conferring resistance to hygromycin B. Protoplasts were produced by digesting germinating conidia in a Novozym 234 solution osmotically stabilized with NaCl. The protoplasts regenerated at ca. 70% on complete medium supplemented with either sucrose or NaCl. Up to 115 hygromycin B‐resistant transformants per microgram of transforming DNA per 10 8 protoplasts were obtained. Southern analysis of genomic DNA from the transformants, separated by either standard agarose gel electrophoresis or by pulsed field gel electrophoresis, confirmed that hygromycin B resistance resulted from integration of the vector. Transformants expressing the green fluorescent protein were also obtained. A total of 209 transformants were then screened for aggressiveness and mycelial radial growth. Four mutants were identified including one mutant with reduced aggressiveness but normal growth in vitro , two mutants with reduced growth in vitro but normal aggressiveness, and one mutant in which both aggressiveness and in vitro growth were reduced.

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 score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForest PathologySame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207