MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154686641 · doi:10.1080/07060660109506967

Comparative virulence of chlorosis-inducing races of<i>Pyrenophora tritici-repentis</i>

2002· article· en· W2154686641 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Stephen E. Strelkov, L. Lamari, R. Sayoud, R. B. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Pathology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPyrenophoraChlorosisVirulenceRace (biology)PathogenBiologyMicrobiologyFungal pathogenGeneGeneticsBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fungal pathogen Pyrenophora tritici-repentis (Died.) Drechs. causes tan spot, an important foliar disease of wheat worldwide. To date, five races of this pathogen have been described. We report the existence of a sixth race and compare the chlorosis symptoms produced by various isolates of P. tritici-repentis representing different races. Isolate Alg-H2, collected in eastern Algeria, has a virulence pattern that combines those of races 3 and 5. Thus, we propose that this isolate be classified in a new race, designated race 6. Isolate 92-171R5, collected on the Manitoba—Saskatchewan border, possesses the same virulence pattern as race 5 isolates but is much less aggressive based on the size of the lesions and the extent of the chlorosis it causes. Ptr ToxB was purified from Alg-H2 culture filtrate, following essentially the same protocol as reported earlier for its purification from race 5 isolate Alg 3-24. The presence of a toxic principle, with the same specificity as Ptr ToxB, was also demonstrated in 92-171R5 culture filtrate.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations87
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant PathologySame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207