MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159936338 · doi:10.21273/jashs.125.6.742

Chitosan Effects on Blackmold Rot and Pathogenic Factors Produced by Alternaria alternata in Postharvest Tomatoes

2000· article· en· W2159936338 on OpenAlexaff
M.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Paul Angers, F. Castaigne, Joseph Arul

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society for Horticultural Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanocomposite Films for Food Packaging
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlternaria alternataPostharvestLasiodiplodia theobromaePectinaseChitosanCaricaHorticultureLycopersiconInoculationBiologyBotrytis cinereaElicitorPectate lyaseChemistryAlternariaFood scienceBotanyEnzymeBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stem scar application of chitosan inhibited growth and production of pathogenic factors by blackmold rot [ Alternaria alternata (Fr.:Fr.) Keissl.] in challenged tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) fruit stored at 20 °C for 28 days. Blackmold lesions were visible within 4 days of inoculation in control fruit, compared with >7 days in chitosantreated fruit. Macerating enzyme activity (polygalacturonase, pectate lyase, and cellulase) in the tissue in the vicinity of the lesions was <50% in chitosan-treated fruit compared with control fruit. Chitosan also inhibited production of oxalic and fumaric acids (chelating agents) and host-specific toxins such as alternariol and alternariol monomethylether by the fungus. The pH of the infected tissue decreased from 4.7 to 4.0 in the control fruit, the optimum for polygalacturonase activity, while the pH of chitosan-treated fruit remained at 4.6. In addition, chitosan also induced production of rishitin (a phytoalexin) in tomato tissue. Such chitosan-pathogen-host interactions may be exploited in the control of postharvest pathogens of fresh fruit and vegetables.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 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

Citations88
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society for Horticultural ScienceSame topicNanocomposite Films for Food PackagingFrench-language works237,207