Identification of an<i>Erwinia</i>sp. different from<i>Erwinia amylovora</i>and responsible for necrosis on pear blossoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Necrotic pear blossoms (NPB) were found in several pear orchards of ‘Ercolini’ (‘Coscia’) and ‘Tendral’ in Turís, Valencia (Spain), in April 1999, during a routine survey, in an area free of Erwinia amylovora. The symptoms resembled those of fire blight [E. amylovora] but affected only blossoms and did not progress to other parts of the tree. Erwinia-like colonies were isolated from the necrotic blossoms that year and the following 2 years, and the morphology of the colonies on CCT medium of Ishimaru and Klos, King’s B medium, and sucrose nutrient agar was similar to that of Erwinia amylovora. The isolates were identified as an Erwinia sp. by their microbiological characteristics and showed API 20E, API 20NE, API ZYM, API 50CH patterns and fatty acid profiles similar, but not identical, to those of E. amylovora and Erwinia pyrifoliae. The isolates reacted as E. amylovora in immunofluorescence with several antisera and one monoclonal antibody (MAb) employed for E. amylovora detection, but did not react in the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay against specific E. amylovora monoclonal antibodies. Polymerase chain reaction with primers from 23S rDNA sequences of E. amylovora were positive, but no signal was obtained with primers from plasmid pEa29 or from chromosomal DNA sequences of E. amylovora. The isolates were able to elicit the hypersensitive reaction on tobacco and tomato leaves and to induce necrosis in pear flowers, but were unable to develop typical fire blight symptoms in other organs of pear trees, and on various host plants of E. amylovora. The isolated Erwinia sp. strains are pathogenic and different from E. amylovora and other described bacterial species affecting pear trees.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".