MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Haplotype analysis and genetic variability of <em>Togninia minima</em> from different geographic sources

2015· article· en· W2135883988 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eduardo Abreo

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaplotypeMaxima and minimaGeographyEvolutionary biologyBiologyGeneticsMathematicsGenotypeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Togninia minima (anamorph Phaeoacremonium aleophilum) is one of the main fungi responsible for trunk diseases of grapevines and other woody hosts worldwide. Sequences of protein-coding genes of isolates from countries in different continents have been published, presenting a useful resource for examination of the diversity and spatial distribution of T. minima genotypes. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) detected in public sequences of the actin and partial β-tubulin genes were used to assess the genetic variability and to determine haplotypes of isolates of this species from different sources. The Italian sample showed the greatest allele number and the largest number of haplotypes. Most haplotypes were present in more than one country, except for haplotype 11010 which was found only in Italy and 10111 found only in Canada. Haplotype 11111 was the most conspicuous and cosmopolitan, being present in six countries and on three host plant species. One observed polymorphism in the non-coding region of the β-tubulin gene could be targeted with allele-specific primers to detect this particular haplotype.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases→French-language works237,207→