MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2292288319 · doi:10.1094/pdis-06-15-0671-re

Resistance to <i>Puccinia coronata</i> f. sp. <i>avenae</i> in <i>Avena magna, A. murphyi</i>, and <i>A. insularis</i>

2016· article· en· W2292288319 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sylwia Sowa, Edyta Paczos-Grzęda, Aneta Koroluk, Sylwia Okoń, Agnieszka Ostrowska, Tomasz Ociepa, M. Chrząstek, Krzysztof Kowalczyk

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaAgricultural Research ServiceBrigham Young UniversityU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsBiologyAvenaRust (programming language)BotanyStem rustCrown (dentistry)SeedlingCultivar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wild oat tetraploids of the section Pachycarpa have already been proven to be a rich source of useful genes but have largely been unexploited for Puccinia coronata resistance. In this study, accessions of Avena magna, A. murphyi, and A. insularis gathered from European and North American gene banks were evaluated at the seedling stage for crown rust reaction using the host-pathogen test and six highly diverse and virulent P. coronata isolates. Of the 92 Avena accessions analyzed, 58.7% were resistant to at least one crown rust race. In all, 37% of the tested accessions reacted nonuniformly, which indicated their heterogeneity. The highest level of resistance was observed in three of the accessions, one of which was verified by flow cytometry as being hexaploid and two of which were verified as being tetraploids. The infection profiles of 19 accessions corresponded to resistance determined by the genes Pc14, Pc39, Pc40, Pc48, Pc50, Pc54, Pc55, Pc61, Pc67, Pc68, Pc97, Pc101, or Pc104. The patterns of infection of the remaining resistant A. magna and A. murphyi accessions allowed us to postulate the presence of potentially novel crown rust resistance genes.

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 score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations18
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207