MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055981754 · doi:10.1111/efp.12003

Development of two reverse transcription‐<scp>PCR</scp> methods to detect living pinewood nematode, <i><scp>B</scp>ursaphelenchus xylophilus</i>, in wood

2012· article· en· W2055981754 on OpenAlexaff
Isabel Leal, B. Foord, Eric Allen, Claire Campion, M. Rott, M. Green

Bibliographic record

VenueForest Pathology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNematode management and characterization studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Food Inspection AgencyCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBursaphelenchus xylophilusBiologyXylophilusNematodePhytosanitary certificationWilt diseasePEST analysisBotanyEcologyHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Pinewood nematode, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus, is an inhabitant of native pine species of North America, where its presence in trees is non‐pathogenic. By contrast, the introduction of this nematode to forests overseas has devastated some pine stands and is recognized as a pest of phytosanitary concern by some countries' National Plant Protection Organizations. The ability to detect B. xylophilus in internationally traded wood products is crucial to reduce the spread of this organism. Current molecular techniques for the detection of B. xylophilus rely on the presence of genomic DNA and thus will detect both living and dead nematodes without differentiation. The detection of dead nematodes could lead to unnecessary trade disruption. Therefore, accurate techniques for the detection of and differentiation between live and dead B. xylophilus are critical. We have developed an endpoint RT‐PCR assay and a SYBR Green 1 real‐time RT‐PCR assay, both of which selectively identify living pinewood nematode by detecting the presence of Hsp70 mRNA as a viability marker. Both of these assays may help overcome or resolve disputes involving the detection of pinewood nematode at the port of entry and can also be used to evaluate the efficiency of wood treatment procedures.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForest PathologySame topicNematode management and characterization studiesFrench-language works237,207