MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032601439 · doi:10.1094/pdis-03-13-0285-pdn

First Report of QoI Insensitive <i>Cercospora beticola</i> on Sugar Beet in Ontario, Canada

2013· article· en· W2032601439 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cheryl L. Trueman, Linda E. Hanson, N. Rosenzweig, Q. W. Jiang, W. W. Kirk

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCercosporaSugar beetLeaf spotBiologyFungicideHorticultureSpotsConidiumVeterinary medicineBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cercospora beticola Sacc. causes Cercospora leaf spot (CLS) of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) and is the most destructive foliar disease of sugar beet worldwide (1). The QoI fungicide pyraclostrobin has been an important management tool for CLS in Canada since 2003. Beginning in 2010, some growers reported poor disease control after applying pyraclostrobin. Leaf disk samples with CLS lesions were collected in September 2012 from 16 commercial fields located in Kent and Lambton Counties, Ontario, Canada. These counties (ca. 300,000 ha) encompass the major commercial sugar beet production area in Ontario (ca. 3,925 ha). CLS severity ranged from low to severe among the sampling sites. Leaf discs with a single leaf spot were cut from leaves using a hole punch. Spots were up to 5 mm in diameter with tan, light brown, or sometimes gray centers. DNA was extracted from leaf discs using a Qiagen DNeasy Plant Mini Kit (Germantown, MD) according to the manufacturer's instructions. PCR was used to amplify a fragment of the C. beticola cytochrome b (CYTB) gene (4). Pure cultures were obtained by placing plant tissue in a moist chamber and transferring single spores to V8 juice agar. PCR products were sequenced for 32 samples at the Genomics Technology Support Facility (Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI) and 25 were confirmed to have 100% identity with the sequence of QoI-resistant C. beticola from Michigan (2) and to QoI-resistant isolates from GenBank (Accession Nos. JQ619933 and JQ360628). The remaining seven had 100% identity with a sensitive isolate (EF176921.1). Each resistant isolate contained a change in codon 143 that is predicted to lead to a substitution of G143A in the cytochrome b gene. This G143A mutation has been associated with QoI resistance in a number of fungi (3). To confirm the result, a conidium germination bioassay was carried out using nine isolates with the G143A mutation on sugar beet leaf agar covered with water agar amended with pyraclostrobin at concentrations ranging from 0 to 54.3 μg/ml and distributed on a spiral gradient using an Eddyjet II spiral plater. The medium was supplemented with salicylhydroxamic acid (SHAM) to block the alternate oxidation pathway. Following incubation at 25°C for 2 days, the distance between the center of the plate at which conidial germination was 50% of the maximum observed growth (EC) and the point at which conidial germination terminated were measured (TEC). The EC 50 values were determined from the SGE software for each isolate by entering the EC and TEC values, respectively. The estimated EC 50 for a representative wild type (sensitive) isolate was 0.03 μg/ml, while the value for the resistant isolate could not be calculated because it was greater than the highest concentration tested (54.3 μg/ml). Additionally, in the controls with no SHAM or fungicide, the resistant isolate showed a consistent reduced germination rate compared to the sensitive isolate (30.0% and 93.5% germination, respectively). Confirmation of fungicide insensitivity will require a re-evaluation of current management practices in Ontario to minimize economic losses due to CLS. References: (1) B. J. Jacobsen and G. D. Franc. Compendium of Beet Diseases and Pests, 2nd ed, APS Press, St. Paul, MN, 2009. (2) W. Kirk et al. New Dis. Rep. 26:3, 2012. (3) Z. Ma and T. J. Michailides. Crop Prot. 24:853, 2005. (4) A. Malandrakis et al. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 100:87092, 2011.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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