MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PCR detection of pirimicarb resistance in Australian field isolates of <i>Aphis gossypii</i> Glover (Aphididae: Hemiptera)

2009· article· en· W2078955498 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Martin O McLoon, Grant A Herron

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Entomology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Association for the Study of the Liver
KeywordsPirimicarbAphis gossypiiBiologyAphididaeBioassayAphidCarbamateToxicologyVeterinary medicineHemipteraPEST analysisBotanyHomopteraGeneticsBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aphis gossypii Glover (cotton aphid) is a major secondary pest of Australian cotton that readily develops resistance to the carbamate insecticide pirimicarb (Pirimor®) and to organophosphates generally. To test the pirimicarb resistance status of Australian strains of A . gossypii , a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay followed by restriction enzyme assay (REA) was designed to identify the Ace I polymorphism S431F known to be responsible for resistance. The method was tested against reference and 33 field strains collected over two consecutive seasons. Both methods confirmed pirimicarb resistance in two field strains, one from each cotton season, giving credence to the molecular technique described. The PCR assay proved specific for the Ace I gene. This PCR REA assay has the potential to replace bioassay for the routine pirimicarb resistance monitoring in A . gossypii. With the molecular assay providing results in 48 h, compared with 4–8 weeks for bioassay, such an assay could be used before insecticide control.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of EntomologySame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207