MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144398002 · doi:10.1094/pdis.2003.87.11.1376

Virulence and Genetic Variability Among Isolates of <i>Mycosphaerella pinodes</i>

2003· article· en· W2144398002 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. X. Zhang, W. G. Dilantha Fernando, Allen Xue

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Disease Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyVirulenceMycosphaerellaCultivarVeterinary medicinePhylogenetic treeGenetic diversityAnalysis of molecular varianceGenetic variationBotanyGeneticsGene flowPopulationGeneDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fifty-eight isolates of Mycosphaerella pinodes, collected from western Canada, New Zealand, France, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Ireland, were analyzed for pathogenic and genetic variation according to their virulence on six differential cultivars of field pea (AC Tamor, Bohatyre, Danto, Majoret, Miko, and Radley) and amplified fragment length polymorphism markers. The 56 isolates were classified into 15 pathotypes. Pathotype 1 consisted of 31 isolates that were virulent on all six pea differential cultivars. Pathotypes 14 and 15 consisted of eight isolates that were avirulent on all six differential cultivars or virulent on one of six differential cultivars. The analysis of molecular variance showed that 57.2% of the total variation was caused by differences among populations, and 42.8% was due to molecular diversity within populations. Phylogenetic analysis of molecular variation of isolates showed that most of the Canadian isolates and four Australian isolates formed two clustered groups, respectively, regardless of virulence on the six differential cultivars. Isolates from New Zealand were geographically clustered into two groups. However, the isolates from France, Ireland, and the United Kingdom were clustered with the Canadian isolates.

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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Citations24
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicPlant Disease Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207