MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MOLECULAR ASPECTS OF PLANT VIRUS TRANSMISSION BY OLPIDIUM AND PLASMODIOPHORID VECTORS

2004· review· en· W2129742889 on OpenAlexaff
D’Ann Rochon, Kishore Kakani, Marjorie Robbins, Ron Reade

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Phytopathology · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyZoosporeCapsidVirologyGenomeVector (molecular biology)Transmission (telecommunications)Plant virusVirusHost (biology)Computational biologyGeneticsMicrobiologyGeneSpore

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The genome structures of a large number of viruses transmitted by olpidium and plasmodiophorid vectors have been determined. The viruses are highly diverse, belonging to 12 genera in at least 4 families. Plasmodiophorids are now classified as protists rather than true fungi. This finding, along with the recognition of the great variety of viruses transmitted by olpidium and plasmodiophorid vectors, will likely lead to an elaboration of the details of in vitro and in vivo transmission mechanisms. Recent progress in elucidating the interaction between Cucumber necrosis virus (CNV) and its zoospore vector suggests that specific sites on the capsid as well as on the zoospore are involved in transmission. Moreover, some features of CNV/zoospore attachment are similar to poliovirus/host cell interactions, suggesting evolutionary conservation of functional features of plant and animal virus capsids.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations113
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of PhytopathologySame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207