MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2304080445 · doi:10.14288/1.0094871

Interactions of cowpea strains of southern bean mosaic virus and of tobacco mosaic virus in cowpea and pinto bean

2010· article· en· W2304080445 on OpenAlexaff
Thandie Leagajang Molefe

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTobacco mosaic virusPinto beanBiologyCowpea mosaic virusMosaic virusPlant virusAgronomyMosaicPotyvirusPhaseolusVirologyVirusHorticultureGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Double infection by cowpea strains of southern bean mosaic virus (CP-SBMV) and of tobacco mosaic virus (CP-TMV) caused additive growth reductions in California blackeye cowpea. Plant height, weight and numbers of seed and pods were significantly reduced by double infection and by CP-TMV single infection compared to healthy and CP-SBMV-sing 1 y infected plants. Singly and doubly inoculated California blackeye cowpea plants developed CP-SBMV symptoms on the primary leaves, but CP-SBMV symptoms in doubly infected trifoliates were masked by CP-TMV symptoms. CP-TMV symptoms did not mask CP-SBMV symptoms in systemically infected trifoliate leaves of another cowpea variety, V45-Bots. CP-TMV infection conditioned systemic infection of V45~Bots by CP-SBMV, as indicated by infectivity,serology and analytical sucrose density gradient centrifugation. CP-TMV also induced susceptibility of Pinto to infection by CP-SBMV, as ascertained by infectivity, immunodiffusion and electron microscopy. Analytical sucrose density gradient centrifugation measurements demonstrated that in doubly inoculated primary leaves of California blackeye cowpea CP-SBMV and CP-TMV were synthesized less than in the same leaves singly inoculated. CP-SBMV synthesis in trifoliate leaves, following simultaneous inoculations of primary leaves, was enhanced 5 times that in singly infected trifoliate leaves, whereas CP-TMV synthesis was not greatly affected. When CP-TMV preceded CP-SBMV in the primary leaves by 2k and 72 hr CP-SBMV synthesis was enhanced more in trifoliate leaves that were undifferentiated at the time of inoculation than in those of plants simultaneously inoculated. When CP-TMV preceded CP-SBMV into preformed 3rd trifoliate leaves by 22 hr, the ratio of CP-SBMV concentration in doubly infected tissue to that in singly infected tissue was 2.7 versus 1.9 when both viruses arrived simultaneously at these leaves. When either virus preceded the other by 72 hr into preformed 3rd trifoliate leaves the synthesis of the challenging virus was greatly retarded. CP-SBMV synthesis was also enhanced by CP-TMV infection under differential temperature synchronous system of infection. Although virions of both viruses were detected in the same cell no genomic masking was detected by infectivity neutralization test. It is theorized that CP-TMV infection predisposes the host cells to infection by CP-SBMV and thus the enhanced synthesis of CP-SBMV. The effect of CP-TMV infection on CP-SBMV synthesis in cowpea seems to be a physiological one. CP-SBMV, but not CP-TMV, was transmitted through planted seed and decontaminated embryos of California blackeye cowpea. Buffer extracts made from decontaminated embryos also were infectious for CP-SBMV. Seed coats contained both viruses. Double infection of California blackeye cowpea decreased seed transmission of CP-SBMV from 13-5 to 7.6%. Buffer extracts of healthy seed were inhibitory to infectivity of both viruses. Germination of seed reduced infectivity of CP-SBMV in the seed coats, but not of CP-TMV. It is also concluded that seed transmission of CP-SBMV is a result of embryo infection rather than contamination with virus in the seed coats.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicPlant Virus Research Studies→French-language works237,207→