MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071009908 · doi:10.1094/pdis.2001.85.1.76

Molecular Characterization and Classification of Phytoplasmas Associated with Canola Yellows and a New Phytoplasma Strain Associated with Dandelions

2001· article· en· W2071009908 on OpenAlexafffund
Keri Wang, C. Hiruki

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogens
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsBiologyRestriction fragment length polymorphismPhytoplasmaAster yellowsCanolaBrassicaBotanyDandelionPolymerase chain reactionGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DNA isolated from symptomatic canola (Brassica napus, Brassica rapa) and dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) was used to amplify 16S ribosomal DNA fragments by polymerase chain reaction using two pairs of universal primers P1/P6 and R16F2n/R2. Restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis of the amplified DNA fragments using endonucleases AluI, HhaI, HpaII, MseI, RsaI, and Sau 3AI revealed two distinct types of phytoplasmas in canola with similar symptoms. One had the same RFLP profiles as the phytoplasmas in subgroup 16SrI-A, whereas the other one had RFLP profiles similar to those of phytoplasmas in subgroup 16SrI-B. Phytoplasmas were detected in symptomatic dandelion plants that were collected from canola and alfalfa fields where severe alfalfa witches'-broom occurred. Comparative studies indicated that two different phytoplasmas were associated with the dandelion plants. One was identified as a member of subgroup 16SrI-A, whereas another one was classified as a member of a distinct subgroup in the aster yellows group on the basis of the unique RFLP patterns.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 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

Citations36
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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