MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155804863 · doi:10.3852/mycologia.100.2.227

DNA sequence analysis of herbarium specimens facilitates the revival of Botrytis mali, a postharvest pathogen of apple

2008· article· en· W2155804863 on OpenAlexaff
D. T. O’Gorman, P. L. Sholberg, Sarah C. Stokes, J. Ginns

Bibliographic record

VenueMycologia · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersWashington State University
KeywordsBiologyBotrytis cinereaHerbariumBotrytisCladeBotanySequence analysisPathogenDNA sequencingPhylogeneticsGeneMicrobiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fungus Botrytis cinerea has been widely accepted as the species responsible for causing gray mold decay of apple, although a second species causing apple decay, B. mali, was reported in 1931. Botrytis mali was validly published in 1931, nevertheless it has always been considered a doubtful species. To study the relationship of Botrytis isolates causing gray mold on apple, DNA sequence analysis was employed. Twenty-eight Botrytis isolates consisting of 10 species were sampled, including two B. mali herbarium specimens from apple originally deposited in 1932. The DNA sequence analysis of the beta-tubulin and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (G3PDH) genes placed the isolates into groupings with defined species boundaries that generally reflected the morphologically based model for Botrytis classification. The B. cinerea isolates from apple and other host plants were placed in a single clade. The B. mali herbarium specimens however always fell well outside that clade. The DNA sequence analysis reported in this study support the initial work by Ruehle (1931) describing the apple pathogen B. mali as a unique species.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations42
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMycologiaSame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207