The effects of selected factors on measured ergot alkaloid content inClaviceps purpurea-infected hexaploid and durum wheat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four wheat genotypes, including the ergot-susceptible durum ‘AC Avonlea’ and hard red spring wheat ‘AC Cadillac’, as well as the resistant durum wheat line 9260B-173A and the hard red spring wheat line ‘Kenya Farmer’ wereinoculated with differentClaviceps purpurea isolates. Honeydew and sclerotia were collected and analysed for 10 ergot alkaloids. Total concentrations of the 10 ergot alkaloids ranged from 16 µg/kg in honeydew to 1,798 mg/kg insclerotia. Ergonovine and ergosine were the predominant alkaloids in honeydew obtained from plants inoculated with various isolates, whereas ergocristine and ergocryptine were the main alkaloids observed in sclerotia. Bothhost plant andC. purpurea isolate were significant factors affecting total ergot alkaloid concentrations in sclerotia. Irrespective of host plant line, all mean total ergot alkaloid concentrations were higher in sclerotia produced from the EI-2 isolate (695-1,010 mg/kg), as compared to EI-4 (255-594 mg/kg). The mass of total ergot alkaloids was alsopositively correlated with the mass of individual sclerotia produced from these twoC. purpurea isolates, with the slope of the regression higher for the EI-2 isolate. The total ergot alkaloid concentrations in sclerotia from various plants inoculated with the sameC. purpurea isolate differed; however, the resistance of host plant line did notappear to be consistent with ergot alkaloid content in sclerotia. Concentrations of total ergot alkaloids were highestand lowest in sclerotia from the two lines that are both classified as ‘resistant’, suggesting that the mechanism ofresistance for these lines is not restriction on the production of ergot alkaloids in sclerotia.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".