Functional Annotation of the Ophiostoma novo-ulmi Genome: Insights into the Phytopathogenicity of the Fungal Agent of Dutch Elm Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ascomycete fungus Ophiostoma novo-ulmi is responsible for the pandemic of Dutch elm disease that has been ravaging Europe and North America for 50 years. We proceeded to annotate the genome of the O. novo-ulmi strain H327 that was sequenced in 2012. The 31.784-Mb nuclear genome (50.1% GC) is organized into 8 chromosomes containing a total of 8,640 protein-coding genes that we validated with RNA sequencing analysis. Approximately 53% of these genes have their closest match to Grosmannia clavigera kw1407, followed by 36% in other close Sordariomycetes, 5% in other Pezizomycotina, and surprisingly few (5%) orphans. A relatively small portion (∼3.4%) of the genome is occupied by repeat sequences; however, the mechanism of repeat-induced point mutation appears active in this genome. Approximately 76% of the proteins could be assigned functions using Gene Ontology analysis; we identified 311 carbohydrate-active enzymes, 48 cytochrome P450s, and 1,731 proteins potentially involved in pathogen-host interaction, along with 7 clusters of fungal secondary metabolites. Complementary mating-type locus sequencing, mating tests, and culturing in the presence of elm terpenes were conducted. Our analysis identified a specific genetic arsenal impacting the sexual and vegetative growth, phytopathogenicity, and signaling/plant-defense-degradation relationship between O. novo-ulmi and its elm host and insect vectors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".