MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170222302 · doi:10.5539/jps.v4n2p21

Presence of Adhesive Vesicles in the Mycoherbicide Alternaria helianthi

2015· article· en· W2170222302 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hamed K. Abbas, Rex N. Paul

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Plant Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFungal Plant Pathogen Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConidiumVirulenceCytoplasmBiologySporeUltrastructureVesicleCell wallMicrobiologyBotanyCell biologyMembraneBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alternaria helianthi conidia have been shown to cause disease on common cocklebur. Alternaria helianthi conidia grown at 18 °C are more virulent than those grown at 28 °C, and adhere to the leaves of the treated plants and causes necrotic lesions, stunting and mortality in common cocklebur at the 6- to 12-leaf stage. Using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) the virulent conidia produced multiple branched germ tubes. The distribution of the adhesive material on the conidial surface was varied, being evenly distributed on some conidia while appearing as globules on others. Examination by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) showed that virulent conidia had dense ribosomes and abundant endoplasmic reticulua indicating actively synthesizing cytoplasm. Adhesive vesicles, which appear to be the means of export of the adhesive from the cytoplasm, were often arranged along external cell walls. An osmophilic material, possibly the adhesive substance itself, was seen between the cell membrane and the cell wall. This substance may play an important role in the virulence of A. helianthi to common cocklebur and survival of this pathogen.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.000
Threshold uncertainty score0.001

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Plant StudiesSame topicFungal Plant Pathogen ControlFrench-language works237,207