MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066576885 · doi:10.1094/pdis-93-7-0762b

First Report of Pierce's Disease of Grape Caused by <i>Xylella fastidiosa</i> in Oklahoma

2009· article· en· W2066576885 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Damon L. Smith, J. Dominiak-Olson, C. D. Sharber

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogens
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsXylella fastidiosaBiologyHorticultureChlorosisBotanyCultivarOrnamental plantVitis viniferaBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bacterial leaf scorch caused by the bacterium Xylella fastidiosa was first identified in Oklahoma in American elm (Ulmus americanus L.) in the summer of 2004 (2). Subsequently, additional infections of other shade trees and ornamentals including oak (Quercus spp.), mulberry tree (Morus spp.), and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) have been identified through sample submission to the Oklahoma State University, Plant Disease and Insect Diagnostic Laboratory. As of July 2008, no grape (Vitis spp.) samples positive for infection by X. fastidiosa were identified in Oklahoma. In August of 2008, leaves of four grape vines (Vitis labrusca 'Concord') grown in a home gardener's backyard located in Canadian County, OK were found to be exhibiting chlorosis and green fading colors with marginal browning. These symptoms included an undulating appearance with red-brown bands between the green and scorched areas. Vines exhibited 'matchstick' symptoms where the leaves dropped from the plant, but the petioles remained attached. All symptoms were consistent with those of Pierce's disease (3). Leaves from all four symptomatic vines and leaves from asymptomatic grapes (V. vinifera, unknown cultivar) from the Oklahoma Botanical Gardens located at Oklahoma State University, Stillwater were sampled. Genomic DNA was extracted from all samples with the DNeasy Plant Mini Kit (Qiagen, Germantown, MD). Samples were tested for the presence of X. fastidiosa by real-time PCR with Xylella genus-specific primers XfF1/XfR2 and dual-labeled TaqMan probe XfP2 (4). Infected tissue from a symptomatic oak tree was used as a positive control. Genomic DNA samples extracted from all four symptomatic grape vines and the symptomatic oak tree were PCR positive. Samples from the asymptomatic grape vine were PCR negative. Subsequent analysis was performed on the four symptomatic grape vine samples. X. fastidiosa-specific primers BBXFOUTF1 and BBXFOUTR1 were used to PCR amplify the gyrB gene (2). The amplification product was purified with the QuickClean 5M PCR Purification Kit (GenScript Corporation, Piscataway, NJ) and was subjected to automated sequencing (Oklahoma State University Recombinant DNA/Protein Resource Facility). BLASTN alignment (1) of the 340-bp sequences from the four symptomatic grape samples revealed 99 to 100% homology with the gyrB gene from a Pierce's disease strain of X. fastidiosa, 'Temecula' (GenBank No. AF534960). Remaining petiole tissues from the samples used above were subjected to serological tests for X. fastidiosa by ELISA (Agdia, Inc. Elkhart, IN). These tests confirmed the presence of X. fastidiosa in symptomatic grape tissue. To our knowledge, this is the first report of X. fastidiosa associated with grape and the first report of Pierce's disease in Oklahoma. This suggests that the geographic range for Pierce's disease should be extended to include central Oklahoma. References: (1) S. F. Altschul et al. J. Mol. Biol. 215:403, 1990. (2) B. R. Olson et al. Plant Dis. 90:108, 2006. (3) R. C. Pearson et al. Compendium of Grape Diseases. The American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, MN, 1998. (4) N. W. Schaad et al. Phytopathology 92:721, 2002.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogensFrench-language works237,207