MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071695434 · doi:10.1094/pdis-93-5-0548b

First Report of <i>Pilidium concavum</i> on <i>Bergenia crassifolia</i> in France

2009· article· en· W2071695434 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laila Toniol Cardin, Lucie Vincenot, Marie‐Hélène Balesdent

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPhytochemistry and Bioactivity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConidiumBiologyMyceliumSpotsBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bergenia crassifolia (L.) Fritsch (elephant's ears or Siberian tea) (Saxifragaceae) is a perennial rhizomatous plant with pink flowers appearing at the end of winter. Since 1990, large, brown, and necrotic spots have been observed on numerous B. crassifolia plants at the University of Sciences in Nice, France. Spots appeared each year in the spring on newly emerged leaves and enlarged up to 1 to 3 cm in diameter during the summer, sometimes affecting more than half of the leaf surface. Leaves with spots were collected from May to November and placed in a humid atmosphere. Black, sessile, discoid conidiomata developed on the spots and exuded a pink, then brown, spore mass. When a mass was transferred onto a 1% malt agar medium, mycelium grew and then numerous, relatively spherical conidiomata (0.5 to 2.5 mm in diameter) developed and exuded a pink slimy mass, which contained many conidia. The mycelium grown at 24°C in the dark was scarce and pale, pink-beige. Under the light, the fungal culture was much darker with a fluffy mycelium and numerous conidiomata. The base of the conidiomata was dark; conidiophores were hyaline and showed little segmentation. Unicellular, cylindrical, fusiform conidia were hyaline, 5.4 to 8 μm long, and 1.4 to 1.9 μm wide. The morphology and size of conidia were comparable with previous descriptions of Pilidium concavum (Desm.) Höhn. (2,3). The ITS1-5.8S-ITS2 region of two isolates was amplified by PCR with primers PN3 and PN10 according to Mendes-Pereira et al. (1) and sequenced. The 421-nt sequence (GenBank Accession No. FM211810) was 100% identical to that of the P. concavum specimen voucher BPI 1107275 (GenBank Accession No. AY487094). P. concavum was reported to be on stored or rotting leaves or fruits of many dicotyledonous plants (2). To validate Koch's postulates, pieces of mycelium cultures with conidiomata (28 days old) were placed onto the upper surface of leaves of healthy B. crassifolia plants (10 to 12 pieces per plant). The leaf epidermis was previously wounded with a needle and a drop of melted paraffin was poured onto each piece of mycelium to prevent desiccation. Agar plugs without the fungus were placed similarly on wounded leaves of two control plants. Four inoculated and two control plants were incubated in growth chambers at either 24 or 18°C (16 h of light per day, 15,000 lx, 80% humidity). At 24°C, brown spots developed from 90% of the inoculation sites, whereas spots were observed for only 18% of the sites at 18°C. Such spots did not develop on control plants. After 2 months, healthy leaves as well as those with necrotic spots were put in humid chambers. Conidiomata formed after 4 weeks and exuded the same pink mass, which contained numerous conidia and from which the fungus was reisolated. Similar symptoms were also observed in several other locations in France and in botanical gardens in Akureyri (Iceland) and Métis (Canada), from which P. concavum was reisolated. To our knowledge, this is the first report of P. concavum on B. crassifolia. References: (1) E. Mendes-Pereira et al. Mycol. Res. 107:1287, 2003. (2) M. E. Palm. Mycologia 83:787, 1991. (3) A. Y. Rossman et al. Mycol. Prog. 3:275, 2004.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicPhytochemistry and Bioactivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207