MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124152917 · doi:10.1094/pdis-04-11-0275

First Detection in North America of Virulence in Wheat Leaf Rust (<i>Puccinia triticina</i>) to Seedling Plants of Wheat with <i>Lr21</i>

2011· article· en· W2124152917 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. A. Kolmer, James A. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyRust (programming language)SeedlingCultivarWheat leaf rustInoculationVirulenceGermplasmAgronomyPoaceaeHorticultureBotanyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leaf rust resistance gene Lr21 is present in hard red spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivars grown in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. Isolates of Puccinia triticina, the causal organism of wheat leaf rust, with virulence to this gene have not been previously detected in annual virulence surveys in the United States. (2). In 2010, hard red spring wheat cvs. Faller, RB07 (1), and Glenn, all with Lr21, had 0 to 5% levels of leaf rust severity, which was higher than in previous years in research plots in North Dakota and Minnesota. Leaf rust collections from wheat cultivars and germplasm lines with Lr21 at three locations in Minnesota and North Dakota were increased on plants of the leaf rust susceptible wheat Thatcher and the Thatcher line with Lr21. Single uredinia from the collections were isolated and increased on seedlings of Thatcher. The single uredinial isolates were inoculated to 7- to 8-day-old seedling plants of the set of 19 differential lines that are currently used in the leaf rust virulence surveys (2). Thatcher lines with Lr3bg, Lr14b, Lr20, and Lr23 were also tested. The isolates were also inoculated to seedling plants of hard red spring wheat cultivars with Lr21: Glenn, Steele-ND, Faller, RB07, Amidon, AC Cora, and McKenzie (3). Previous standardized methods for growing seedling plants, increase of rust isolates, inoculation, incubation, and evaluation of infection types (IT) were used (2). All tests with the Thatcher differential lines and the cultivars with Lr21 were repeated at least twice. Virulence phenotypes were described based on virulence to the 19 differentials in the P. triticina virulence nomenclature system used in the United States. (2). Two virulence phenotypes, TFBJQ and TFBGQ, with virulence to Lr21 were found at the three locations. TFBJQ is virulent (IT 3 to 4) to genes Lr1, 2a, 2c, 3, 10, 14a, 14b, 20, 21, 24, 26, 28, and avirulent (IT 0 to 2 + ) to genes Lr3ka, Lr3bg, Lr9, Lr11, Lr17, Lr18, Lr30, LrB, and Lr39/41. TFBGQ was avirulent to Lr14a and Lr20, but identical to TFBJQ for virulence and avirulence to the other resistance genes. Isolates of both phenotypes were virulent on seedlings of Faller, Glenn, RB07 (1), Steele-ND, AC Cora, and Amidon. McKenzie had IT of 2 + due to the additional presence of Lr16 (3). Both TFBJQ and TFBGQ have intermediate IT of 2 + to Lr16; IT 2 + 3 to Lr23, and are completely virulent to Lr1, Lr2a, and Lr10 that are present in hard red spring wheat cultivars. Both phenotypes have high IT to Lr24 and Lr26 that are present in soft red winter wheat and hard red winter wheat cultivars. The Lr21 virulent phenotypes likely arose by mutation from the group of P. triticina genotypes in the simple sequence repeat group NA-5 (4) that have intermediate IT of ;2 - to ;2 + to the Thatcher line with Lr21. P. triticina isolates with virulence to Lr21 are a new threat to wheat production since in 2010 more than 50% of the hard red spring wheat acreage in Minnesota and North Dakota relied on Lr21 for effective resistance to leaf rust. References: (1) J. A. Anderson et al. J. Plant Regist. 3:175, 2009. (2) J. A. Kolmer et al. Plant Dis. 94:775, 2010. (3) B. McCallum and P. Seto-Goh. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 32:387, 2010. (4) M. E. Ordoñez and J. A. Kolmer. Phytopathology 99:750, 2009.

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 score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations28
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207