MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035847248 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2010.08.0464

Resistance to Tan Spot and Insensitivity to Ptr ToxA in Wheat

2011· article· en· W2035847248 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Angelo Jay Noriel, Xiaochun Sun, Willium Bockus, Guihua Bai

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Food and AgricultureOklahoma State UniversityU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsPyrenophoraBiologyCultivarRace (biology)Leaf spotPlant disease resistanceAgronomyCommon wheatFungusHorticultureGeneBotanyGeneticsChromosome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Tan spot, caused by the fungus Pyrenophora tritici‐repentis , is an important foliar disease of wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) worldwide. Growing resistant cultivars is an effective approach to reduce the losses caused by the disease. To identify resistance genes in common wheat, 380 wheat accessions from different geographical origins were evaluated for resistance to P. tritici‐repentis race 1, the predominant race in the Great Plains of the United States and western Canada, and insensitivity to Ptr ToxA, a host‐selective toxin produced by race 1. Most accessions tested (60%) were resistant and only 93 accessions (24%) were as susceptible as TAM 105, the susceptible control. Among 379 accessions, 230 were insensitive to Ptr ToxA, but only 158 of them showed resistance to race 1. A weak correlation between tan spot score and sensitivity to Ptr ToxA suggests that pathogenicity factors other than Ptr ToxA (like Ptr ToxC) also contributed to tan spot development in these accessions. The accessions with resistance to tan spot identified in this study should be useful sources for developing new tan spot resistant cultivars.

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 score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations19
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207