Genetic variation of<i>Rhizoctonia solani</i>isolates from canola in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zhou, Q. X., Hwang, S. F., Fu, H. T., Strelkov, S. E. and Gossen, B. D. 2014. Genetic variation of Rhizoctonia solani isolates from canola in Alberta, Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94: 671–681. Seedling blight and root rot caused by Rhizoctonia solani often results in severe reductions in plant stands of canola (Brassica napus), a major oilseed crop in Canada. A total of 98 R. solani isolates were collected from central Alberta in 2009–2011 and analyzed for aggressiveness, anastomosis grouping and genetic variation. Seventy-six isolates (78%) were identified as AG2-1, three (3%) were AG2-2, one (1%) was AG4, one (1%) was AG8, and the anastomosis group of 17 isolates (17%) could not be determined. Isolates of AG2-1 were more aggressive on canola than the other isolates. The genetic variation among the 98 isolates was evaluated by sequence analysis of the ribosomal DNA internal transcribed spacers (ITS) and inter-simple sequence repeat (ISSR) markers. The isolates clustered into four groups based on a neighbor-joining tree of the ITS sequences using PAUP software, and four groups based on ISSR markers using the POPGENE program. The isolate composition of Group A in both clustering approaches was similar, and those isolates were weakly aggressive on canola seedlings. Although the identities of both groups differed, Groups B and C in both analyses included most of the AG2-1 isolates, which were highly aggressive on canola seedlings. Isolates with undetermined anastomosis grouping and isolates classified as AG4, AG8 or AG2-2 were also included in Groups B and C, but were generally less aggressive than the AG2-1 isolates. Group D consisted of only three isolates in both analyses, but their identities also differed. The results indicated that there was no association between Groups from the two molecular approaches.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".