MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Volatile metabolite profiling to detect and discriminate stem‐end rot and anthracnose diseases of mango fruits

2006· article· en· W2032184436 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Moalemiyan, A. Vikram, Ajjamada C. Kushalappa, Varoujan Yaylayan

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Pathology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMangiferaLasiodiplodia theobromaePostharvestColletotrichum gloeosporioidesInoculationBiologyHorticultureMetaboliteBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The volatile metabolites from the headspace gas of containerised mango ( Mangifera indica ) cv. Tommy Atkins fruits, surface wounded and inoculated with the two fungal anamorphic pathogens Colletotrichum gloeosporioides and Lasiodiplodia theobromae , or non‐inoculated (controls), were profiled using a portable gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer to discriminate diseases of mango. Thirty‐four compounds were detected relatively consistently among replicates. Several of these were disease/inoculation‐discriminatory and were classified into three groups: (i) compounds unique to only one treatment; (ii) compounds common to two or more treatments, but not to all; and (iii) compounds common to all treatments, but varying in their abundance. Two compounds, 1‐pentanol and ethyl boronate, were detected in L. theobromae‐ inoculated mangoes alone, while thujol was observed only in C. gloeosporioides‐ inoculated mangoes. Discriminant analysis models based on the abundance of significant mass ions and consistent compounds correctly classified diseases/inoculations in up to 100% of cases. The disease‐discriminatory compounds and discriminant analysis models developed here have the potential to be used in the early detection of postharvest diseases of mango fruits after validation under commercial conditions.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.616

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations31
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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