MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051252998 · doi:10.1094/pdis-02-14-0176-pdn

First Report of <i>Cucumber green mottle mosaic virus</i> on Melon in the United States

2014· article· en· W2051252998 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
K. Posis, C. J. Maroon-Lango, Vessela Mavrodieva, S. Haymes, T. L. Pitman, B. W. Falk

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMelonBiologyCucumisPlant virusGenBankHorticultureAmpliconCucumber mosaic virusBotanyVirusAgronomyVirologyPolymerase chain reactionGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In July 2013, a melon (Cucumis melo var. Saski) field in Yolo County, California, was inspected as part of a phytosanitary inspection for seed production. The leaves of the plants showed mosaic, green mottle, and blotches. When plant sap was examined using a transmission electron microscope, rigid rod-shaped particles were observed. Melon plant samples were analyzed by both CDFA and USDA APHIS PPQ laboratories and tested positive using DAS-ELISA against Cucumber green mottle mosaic virus (CGMMV) (Agdia, Elkhart, IN). To confirm the presence of CGMMV, total RNA was analyzed by RT-PCR using primers CGMMV-F5370 5'-CTAATTATTCTGTCGTGGCTGCGGATGC-3' and CGMMV-R6390 5'-CTTGCAGAATTACTGCCCATA-3' designed by PPQ based on 21 genomic sequences of CGMMV found worldwide. The 976-bp amplicon was sequenced (GenBank Accession No. KJ453559) and BLAST analysis showed the sequence was 95% identical to MP and CP region of CGMMV isolates reported from Russia (GQ495274, FJ848666), Spain (GQ411361), and Israel (KF155231), and 92% to the isolates from China (KC852074), Korea (AF417243), India (DQ767631), and Japan (D12505). These analyses confirm the virus was CGMMV. To our knowledge, this is the first report of CGMMV in the United States. Based on our sequence data, a second set of primers (CGMMV-F5796 5'-TTGCGTTTAGTGCTTCTTATGT-3' and CGMMV-R6237 5'-GAGGTGGTAGCCTCTGACCAGA-3'), which amplified a 440-bp amplicon from CGMMV CP region, was designed and used for testing all the subsequent field and seed samples. Thirty-seven out of 40 randomly collected Saski melon samples tested positive for CGMMV, suggesting the virus was widespread in the field. All the melon samples also tested positive for Squash mosaic virus (SqMV) using DAS-ELISA (Agdia). Therefore, the symptoms observed likely resulted from a mixed infection. The melon field affected by CGMMV was immediately adjacent to fields of cucumber (Cucumis sativus var. Marketmore 76) and watermelon (Citrullus lanatus var. Sugar Baby) crops, both for seed production with no barrier between the crops. CGMMV was also detected from symptomatic plants from both fields. Seed lots used for planting all three crops were tested and only the melon seed was positive for CGMMV, suggesting the seed as the source of infection. The sequenced 440-bp RT-PCR amplicons from CGMMV-infected cucumber and watermelon plants and melon seeds were 99% identical to the CGMMV from the field melon. A cucumber plant infected with CGMMV but not SqMV was used for mechanical inoculation at the Contained Research Facility at University of California, Davis. Inoculated cucumber, melon, and watermelon plants showed green mottle and mosaic similar to that observed in the field. CGMMV is a highly contagious virus and damage by this virus on cucurbit crops has been reported in regions where CGMMV is present (2). CGMMV was detected on cucumber grown in greenhouses in Canada with 10 to 15% yield losses reported due to this virus (1). The three cucurbit crops in Yolo County were planted in an isolated area with no other cucurbits nearby. Measures, including destroying all the cucurbit plant material, have been taken to eradicate the virus. Use of CGMMV free cucurbit seed is necessary for prevention of this disease. References: (1) K.-S. Ling et al. Plant Dis. 98:701, 2014. (2) J. Y. Yoon et al. J. Phytopathol. 156:408, 2008.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations58
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207