Genetic Composition of <i>Pepino mosaic virus</i> Population in North American Greenhouse Tomatoes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In just a few short years, pepino mosaic disease has quickly become endemic in greenhouse tomatoes around the world. Although three genotypes of Pepino mosaic virus (PepMV) were identified in the United States, genetic composition of PepMV in greenhouse tomato crops in North America has not been determined. In this study, genetic variability and population structure of PepMV were evaluated through nucleotide sequence comparison and phylogenetic analysis of two genomic regions (helicase domain and TGB2-3) derived from 91 cDNA clones that were derived from 31 field-collected samples. These samples were collected from several major greenhouse tomato facilities in five states in the United States and two provinces in Canada. All four major genotypes of PepMV (EU, US1, US2, and CH2) were found in North America. Three distinct genotypes (EU, US1, and US2) were found in mixed infection in samples collected from Arizona and Colorado, two genotypes (EU and CH2) in Texas, and a single genotype (EU) in Alabama and California and the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario in Canada. The complexity of population genetics of PepMV in the United States poses an additional challenge to the greenhouse tomato industry because a tomato cultivar with durable resistance to multiple genotypes of PepMV may be harder to develop.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".