Biochemical Assay Detects Feeding Damage to Loblolly Pine Seeds Caused by the Leaffooted Pine Seed Bug (Hemiptera: Coreidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A large number of proteins in salivary gland extracts of the leaffooted pine seed bug, Leptoglossus corculus Say, were strongly recognized by a polyclonal antibody-based assay developed for detecting saliva of the western conifer seed bug. Leptoglossus occidentalis Heidemann, in lodgepole pine, Pinus contorta var. latifolia Engelmann, seeds. An average of approximately 85% of loblolly pine, Pinus taeda L., seeds exposed to feeding by L. corculus for 1 to 4 weeks in the laboratory contained detectable amounts of salivary proteins when the antibody assays were performed weekly on samples (n = 10) of seed. In comparison, radiography of exposed seed detected an average of approximately 63% damaged seed over the same 4-wk period, indicating that the antibody assay increased sensitivity of damage detection by approximately one-third. Depletion of insoluble polypeptides and proliferation of soluble polypeptides ≤23.5 kDa was apparent after SDS-PAGE and quantitative assays were performed on proteins extracted from seeds that were damaged by exposure to L. corculus feeding. Our data suggest that the antibody-based test could be used to obtain accurate estimates of seed losses attributable to L. corculus feeding in southern pine seed orchards.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".