MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038578380 · doi:10.1080/07060660509507243

Adaptation to new hosts shown by the cloned components of<i>Mungbean yellow mosaic India virus</i>causing cowpea golden mosaic in northern India

2005· article· en· W2038578380 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
V. G. Malathi, A. Naghma, Anirban Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Pathology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVignaBiologyWhiteflyPhaseolusBegomovirusHost (biology)RadiataVirusMosaic virusInfectivityCucumber mosaic virusVirologyBotanyHorticulturePlant virusGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The causal virus of golden mosaic of cowpea in northern India has been identified as a variant of Mungbean yellow mosaic India virus (MYMIV) and designated as MYMIV-[Cp]. MYMIV-[Cp] was transmissible by whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) only to cowpea (Vigna unguiculata), yard long bean (V. unguiculata subsp. sesquipedalis), and French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) and not to any other leguminous hosts. However, agroinoculation of the cloned DNA A and DNA B components of MYMIV-[Cp] produced systemic symptoms in blackgram (V. mungo), mungbean (V. radiata), and mothbean (V. aconitifolia). The severity of disease symptoms and infectivity rate depended on the genotype tested. The progeny virus of agroinoculated plants was whitefly transmissible between blackgram, mungbean, cowpea, and French bean plants. Though the virus was transmissible to blackgram and produced severe symptoms, very low levels of viral DNA components were seen, indicating only limited adaptation to the host. The work communicated here describes, for the first time, the aetiology of golden mosaic of cowpea in northern India and demonstrates adaptation to new hosts of a cloned virus, through agroinoculation.

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)0.001
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 score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.231
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 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

Citations26
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant PathologySame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207