MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134775381 · doi:10.1094/pdis.2004.88.10.1092

High Sequence Variability Among <i>Little cherry virus</i> Isolates Occurring in British Columbia

2004· article· en· W2134775381 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jane Theilmann, S. Orbán, D’Ann Rochon

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyVirologyNucleic acid sequenceVirusPolymerase chain reactionSequence analysisSequence (biology)Veterinary medicineGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The LC5 isolate of Little cherry virus (LChV-LC5) is one of at least two distinct viruses contributing to a severe disease of cherry (Little cherry disease [LChD]) in British Columbia. A near-complete nucleotide sequence of LChV-LC5 is available as well as polyclonal antibodies against LChV-LC5 coat protein produced in bacterial cells. A survey for LChV-LC5-infected trees in the Okanagan Valley and Kootenay region of British Columbia was carried out using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) and LChV-LC5 antibodies. Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and sequence analysis of four different regions of the genomes of 31 of these isolates have been conducted. A high level of sequence variability was found: nucleotide sequence divergence between LChV-LC5 and the other sequenced isolates ranged from 0 to 19.7%, and amino acid sequence divergence ranged from 0 to 9.1%. Further examination of RT-PCR and sequence data identified six discrete groups of isolates, including a group identical to LChV-LC5. The high level of divergence in LChV-LC5 isolates occurring in British Columbia suggests that caution should be used in the selection of methods used for diagnosis during surveys for this virus.

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 score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.846

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations13
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207