Random amplified polymorphic DNA variability among geographic isolates of western gall rust fungus in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geographic variability among western gall rust (WGR) fungus (Endocronartium harknessii (J.P. Moore) Y. Hiratsuka) was studied by random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD). Samples were taken from lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) host at four locations in British Columbia and Alberta and from jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.) host at nine locations in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario. Of 90 random oligonucleotide primers screened, 9 were chosen for analysis. These nine primers consistently amplified 41 sharp and reproducible RAPDs (fragments) of the WGR fungal isolates over several independent runs. Eighteen of the 41 RAPDs were polymorphic (showing the presence of both marker and null phenotypes), of which 15 could discriminate WGR isolates of lodgepole pine hosts from jack pine ones. Of these 15 RAPDs, five were unique to isolates of lodgepole and five to jack pine. The remaining five RAPDs were significantly heterogeneous in the RAPD frequency between WGR isolates of the two host origins. The RAPD pattern of WGR isolates from lodgepole pine was uniform. However, isolates from jack pine differed significantly in the frequency of four RAPDs among locations, with an east-west trend of decreasing similarity in RAPD. Analysis of molecular variance apportioned 76.3, 14.4, and 9.3% of the total RAPD variability to differences among hosts, to differences among locations within hosts, and to differences within locations, respectively. The large differentiation between WGR fungal isolates sampled in lodgepole pine and jack pine hosts might suggest that selective pressure for host specificity in sampled populations was strong.
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 | 0.001 | 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".