MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Differential Growth Inhibition of <i>Diaporthe</i> and <i>Phomopsis</i> Isolates by the Metabolic Activity of Five Actinomycetes

2000· article· en· W2066666613 on OpenAlexaff
M. Munta ñola‐Cvetkovic, Jelena Vukojević, M. Mihaljčević

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Phytopathology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Biological Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhomopsisBiologyBotanyPycnidiumFungi imperfectiConidium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fifty‐five cultures derived from Diaporthe perithecia and Phomopsis pycnidia found on diverse host plant species collected at different times and sites in Vojvodina, Yugoslavia, showed distinguishing quantitative reactions to the fungistatic activity of five actinomycetes obtained as fortuitous laboratory contaminants coming from field material. Streptomyces albidoflavus , S. albus , S. diastaticus , Streptomyces sp., and Streptoverticillium sp. could be ranked by their growth‐inhibitory potential, with S. albus showing the strongest, and Streptomyces sp. the lowest. The responses of the fungi varied depending on the tested actinomycetes, but two major groups could be distinguished: A, which encompased the isolates that were less affected by the proximity of the actinomycetes; and B, with those which exhibited high sensitivity in all the experiments. Group A was typically represented by Diaporthe arctii , Phomopsis longicolla, and the Phomopsis type‐1 cultures from Xanthium italicum; group B was typically represented by Diaporthe/Phomopsis helianthi, Phomopsis type‐2 cultures from X. italicum , and isolates from Lactuca serriola . The results obtained underscore the dissimilarities between D. arctii and D. helianthi , and corroborate the value of the physiological aspects of congeneric isolates in considering taxonomic problems in the coelomicete genus Phomopsis.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PhytopathologySame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207