MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071866564 · doi:10.2183/pjab.79b.155

Molecular evolution of phytoplasmas based on polymorphisms in the 16S rRNA genes and the 16/23S spacer regions

2003· article· en· W2071866564 on OpenAlexaff
Keri Wang, C. Hiruki, Francis C. Yeh

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Japan Academy Series B · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogens
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhylogenetic treeBiologyGeneticsRibosomal RNAInternal transcribed spacer23S ribosomal RNAPhytoplasma16S ribosomal RNAConserved sequenceGeneEvolutionary biologyRestriction fragment length polymorphismPolymerase chain reactionBase sequenceRNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the reclassification and molecular evolution of phytoplasmas based on nucleotide sequence analysis of the 16S rRNA and 16/23S spacer region. Analyses of the secondary structure of 16S rRNA among 23 phytoplasmas revealed 308 polymorphisms of which two thirds were located in nine highly variable regions. The 16/23S spacer region comprised two highly conserved regions and a highly conserved tRNAIle gene. Nucleotide deletion/insertions of various lengths occurred only between the highly conserved regions, resulting in 16/23S spacer regions with varying lengths among different phytoplasmas. Phylogenetic analysis on the alignments of secondary structure of 16S rRNA established a tree with ten major groups that had high confidence values. The branching patterns and differences in the 16S rRNA sequence homology greater than 2.5% established 10 major groups among the 23 phytoplasmas. We hypothesize that phytoplasmas evolved independently from a common ancestor into two branches: one branch consisting of the aster yellows and stolbur groups, and the others as a second branch.(Communicated by Eishiro SHIKATA, M. J. A., June 10, 2003)

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)0.001
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 score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations7
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Japan Academy Series BSame topicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogensFrench-language works237,207