MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044387474 · doi:10.1139/b02-090

Comparing methods of preservation for cultures of entomopathogenic fungi

2002· article· en· W2044387474 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cláudia C. López Lastra, Ann E. Hajek, Richard A. Humber

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicInfectious Diseases and Mycology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntomophthoralesInfectivityBiologyPaecilomycesHyphomycetesAedes aegyptiDesiccationOomyceteHorticultureBotanyMicrobiologyBiological pest controlLarva

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nine species of entomopathogenic fungi were tested for viability after they had been stored with deionized water, mineral oil, or silica gel or frozen at –20 or –80°C. Species tested included members of the Hyphomycetes, Entomophthorales, Trichomycetes, and Oomycetes. The fungal cultures were maintained up to 1.5 years and were checked at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months. For all species evaluated, Paecilomyces fumosoroseus demonstrated the best results, surviving through 18 months when stored with water or mineral oil and when frozen at –80°C. For the majority of other fungal species tested, except the trichomycete Smittium culisetae and oomycete Leptolegnia chapmanii, freezing at –80°C was the best storage method and storage with silica gel was the worst. In addition to culture viability, infectivity against Aedes aegypti larvae was evaluated after 18 months of storage for L. chapmanii and S. culisetae. The simplest and least expensive methods, using water or mineral oil, were the only successful methods for maintaining viability and infectivity of L. chapmanii and S. culisetae.Key words: entomopathogenic fungi, preservation, storage, viability.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations48
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicInfectious Diseases and MycologyFrench-language works237,207