Application of Image Analysis in Studies of Quantitative Disease Resistance, Exemplified Using Common Bacterial Blight–Common Bean Pathosystem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effectiveness of image analysis (IA) compared with an ordinal visual scale, for quantitative measurement of disease severity, its application in quantitative genetic studies, and its effect on the estimates of genetic parameters were investigated. Studies were performed using eight backcross-derived families of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) (n = 172) segregating for the molecular marker SU91, known to be associated with a quantitative trait locus (QTL) for resistance to common bacterial blight (CBB), caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. phaseoli and X. fuscans subsp. fuscans. Even though both IA and visual assessments were highly repeatable, IA was more sensitive in detecting quantitative differences between bean genotypes. The CBB phenotypic difference between the two SU91 genotypic groups was consistently more than fivefold for IA assessments but generally only two- to threefold for visual assessments. Results suggest that the visual assessment results in overestimation of the effect of QTL in genetic studies. This may have been caused by lack of additivity and uneven intervals of the visual scale. Although visual assessment of disease severity is a useful tool for general selection in breeding programs, assessments using IA may be more suitable for phenotypic evaluations in quantitative genetic studies involving CBB resistance as well as other foliar diseases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".