MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163749495 · doi:10.1094/phyto-10-14-0270-r

Characterization of a Gene Identified in Pathotype 5 of the Clubroot Pathogen<i>Plasmodiophora brassicae</i>

2015· article· en· W2163749495 on OpenAlexafffund
H. Zhang, Jie Feng, Victor P. Manolii, Stephen E. Strelkov, Sheau‐Fang Hwang

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytopathology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Disease Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Crop Industry Development Fund
KeywordsClubrootBiologyGenePathogenPolymerase chain reactionGeneticsCanolaMicrobiologyBrassicaBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clubroot caused by Plasmodiophora brassicae is an important disease of crucifers worldwide. Isolates of the pathogen can be classified into pathotypes according to their pathogenicity on differential hosts. In this study, the presence or absence of all database-available nonhousekeeping P. brassicae genes (118 in total) were assessed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis in isolates belonging to five P. brassicae pathotypes (2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 according to Williams' differential set). One gene, designated Cr811, was present exclusively in the isolate of pathotype 5. This was further confirmed by dot blot hybridization and by PCR using alternative DNA preparations and primers. Reverse transcription quantitative PCR analysis indicated that in planta expression of Cr811 was up-regulated during canola infection, especially in the stage of secondary plasmodia. Primers specific to Cr811 could distinguish a field isolate of P. brassicae belonging to pathotype 5 from two other field isolates representing pathotypes 3 and 8. These findings suggest that Cr811 is a gene that is potentially involved in clubroot pathogenesis and that it also might serve as a molecular marker for differentiation of pathotype 5 from other pathotypes.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytopathologySame topicPlant Disease Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207