First Incidence of <i>Plum Pox Virus</i> on Apricot Trees in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plum pox disease, caused by Plum pox virus (PPV), is the most severe virus disease of plums, apricots, and peaches. The disease causes heavy losses for fruit growers and the international trade of propagation materials and fresh fruits. PPV was first reported in Bulgaria in 1917 (1). It is now widespread in Europe and has been reported from Cyprus, Syria, Egypt, India, Kazakhstan, Chile, the United States, and Canada. Leaves on symptomatic apricot trees (Prunus armeniaca cvs. Hong Mei and Bai Mei and a selected genotype) in the Hunan Province of China showed typical yellow rings and diffused chlorotic spots. Samples from three suspected trees were repeatedly analyzed using double-antibody sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (DAS-ELISA) and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in the summers of 2001-2003. PPV was detected in leaves, bark, and leaf buds of all three trees using ELISA with polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies provided by M. Navratil, Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic (3). The results were confirmed using RT-PCR amplification of a 243-bp of the coat protein gene with a PPV-specific primer pair (2). BLAST analysis of two RT-PCR product sequences (GenBank Accession Nos. AY750961 and AY795603) showed 100% homology to multiple sequences of the PPV-D strain (GenBank Accession Nos. X81080, AF440743, and AF401295). The third sequence (GenBank Accession No. AY795602) had a C at position 112 rather than the T found in the other sequences. The ELISA, RT-PCR, and sequence results indicate that PPV-D was present in the apricot trees. To our knowledge, this is the first indication of PPV occurrence in China. This sporadic incidence of PPV on apricot trees requires addressing problems with the occurrence and spread of plum pox diseases in China and starting an eradication program. References: (1) D. Atanasoff. Annu. Univ. Sofia Fac. Agron. et Sylvic. 11:49, 1932. (2) T. Candresse et al. Phytopathology. 88:198, 1998. (3) I. Hilgert et al. Hybridoma. 12:215, 1993.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".