MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123741320 · doi:10.1094/pdis-94-5-0634b

First Report of Pear Decline Caused by ‘<i>Candidatus</i> Phytoplasma pyri’ in Ontario, Canada

2010· article· en· W2123741320 on OpenAlexaffabout
David M. Hunter, Antonet M. Svircev, Mina Kaviani, R. Michelutti, Leimin Wang, Dan Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogens
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection AgencyAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhytoplasmaPEARBiologyHorticultureSeedlingPyrus communisNested polymerase chain reactionBotanyPolymerase chain reactionRestriction fragment length polymorphismGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pear decline (PD) is a serious disease of pear (Pyrus communis L.) caused by 'Candidatus Phytoplasma pyri', which belongs to the subgroup 16SrX-C of the apple proliferation (AP) group of phytoplasmas (3). Pear seedlings from the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) pear breeding program, which have been selected for advanced test and grower trials, are routinely submitted to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) Sidney Laboratory (formerly, CFIA Centre for Plant Health, Saanichton, BC) for virus testing at the same time that propagation is initiated to produce trees for further evaluations. In early 2007, the CFIA reported that samples of two seedling selections submitted in 2005 tested positive for phytoplasmas by a nested PCR assay with phytoplasma universal primers P1/P7 (1), followed by phytoplasma universal primers fU5/rU3 (2) and real time PCR with universal phytoplasma primers developed by the CFIA-Sidney (personal communication). Phytoplasmas present in both selections were subsequently identified as 'Ca. P. pyri' strains by nested PCR with the P1/P7 primers followed by PD/peach yellow leaf roll (PYLR)-specific primers fPD/rPDS (2,4). These were the first PD-positive results from many samples submitted over the years for testing. Following PD-positive diagnoses for the seedling trees, others propagated from these seedling trees were removed from the nursery. When tested by PD-specific nested PCR (P1/P7 then fPD/rPDS), one selection had 39 of 79 nursery trees (49%) that were PD positive, while the other selection had 27 of 96 trees (28%) testing as PD positive. PCR amplification of DNA isolated from leaves of six of the propagated trees, with primer pair fPD/rPDS, yielded an ~1,400-bp product that was sequenced. A consensus sequence of 1,313 bp (GenBank Accession No. GU565959) was subjected to a nucleotide BLAST search of the NCBI database and showed 100% nt identity with sequences of phytoplasmas PD1 (AJ542543) and PYLR (Y16394). Subsequently, the PD-positive results from leaf, dormant shoot, and root tissues from the original seedling trees were confirmed by PD-specific nested PCR. On the original seedling trees, visible symptoms typical of PD, especially premature leaf coloration, were observed in late summer 2008 and samples taken of green and red leaves were subjected to PD-specific PCR. Red leaves were PD-positive, while green leaves were mostly PD-negative. Pear leaves, dormant shoots, and roots collected from research and commercial orchards in southern Ontario in 2007 and 2008 were subjected to PD-specific nested PCR (P1/P7 then fPD/rPDS), AP-specific nested PCR (P1/P7 then fO1/rO1) (2), as well as the universal phytoplasma nested PCR (P1/P7 then fU5/rU3), resulting in the identification of PD-positive trees of several cultivars. The sequence of the 1,057-bp amplicon from accession PYR0190 (selection HW615), with AP-specific primers fO1/rO1, was deposited in GenBank (GU475131). Although there have been no previous reports of PD in Ontario, Canada, it would appear that PD has been present for some time based on the number and distribution (both geographic and cultivar) of positive samples. References: (1) S. Deng and C. Hiruki. J. Microbiol. Methods 14:53, 1991. (2) K.-H. Lorenz et al. Phytopathology 85:771, 1995. (3) E. Seemüller et al. J. Plant Pathol. 80:3, 1998. (4) C. D. Smart et al. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 62:2988, 1996.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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