MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166584992 · doi:10.1139/b01-075

Molecular polymorphism and virulence phenotypes of the wheat leaf rust fungus <i>Puccinia triticina</i> in Canada

2001· article· en· W2166584992 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
J. A. Kolmer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSolar Energy Technologies Office
KeywordsVirulenceAmplified fragment length polymorphismBiologyWheat leaf rustPhenotypePuccinia reconditaGeneticsRust (programming language)MicrobiologyBotanyGeneGenetic diversity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sixty-nine Puccinia triticina isolates from the eastern region of Ontario and Quebec, the prairie region of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and Alberta were tested for virulence to 22 near-isogenic Thatcher wheat lines in seedling tests and the Thatcher line with Lr22b in adult plant tests. The isolates were also tested for amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) using 10 specific amplification primer pairs. Thirty-seven distinct virulence phenotypes were identified using the Thatcher lines and 69 molecular phenotypes were identified with 164 AFLP markers. The correlation of isolate grouping based on virulence phenotypes and AFLP phenotypes was 0.53. Almost all isolates from Manitoba and Saskatchewan with virulence to Lr17 had AFLP phenotypes that differed significantly from isolates in the same region that were avirulent to Lr17. This indicated that isolates with virulence to Lr17 are most likely a recent introduction to the prairie region. The presence of distinct groups of isolates based on virulence and AFLP variation provides evidence that a number of different P. triticina phenotypes have been introduced to North America.Key words: Puccinia recondita f.sp. tritici, AFLP, specific virulence.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations55
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207