MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2549649231 · doi:10.3390/jof2040028

Phylogenetic Analysis of the Synnema-Producing Genus Synnemapestaloides

2016· article· en· W2549649231 on OpenAlexaff
Kyoko Watanabe, Mao Sekiguchi, Toyozo Sato, Tom Hsiang, Shigeru Kaneko, Kazuaki Tanaka, Masaru Kanda, Naoko Fujita, Shunsuke Nozawa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fungi · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceInstitute for Fermentation, Osaka
KeywordsBiologyType speciesInternal transcribed spacerConidiumPhylogenetic treeGenusBotanyAppendagePhylogeneticsGeneticsGeneEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Synnemapestaloides rhododendri, the type species of the genus Synnemapestaloides, is a pathogen of Rhododendron brachycarpum. This fungus produces six-celled conidia with appendages at both end cells, and are generated by annellidic conidiogenous cells on the synnema. These conidial structures are similar to those of the genus Pestalotia. The monotypic genus Synnemapestaloides is currently classified in the family Amphisphaeriaceae solely based on conidial morphology. Here we demonstrate that Synnemapestaloides represents a distinct genus in the family Sporocadaceae (Amphisphaeriales) based on differences in the nucleotide sequences of the partial large subunit rDNA gene, the rDNA internal transcribed spacer, and the partial β-tubulin. The genus most closely related to Synnemapestaloides is Seimatosporium and the species most similar to Synnemapestaloides rhododendri is Seim. foliicola which produces short synnema-like conidiomata (sporodochia). These results demonstrate that Seim. foliicola should be transferred to Synnemapestaloides, and also demonstrate that Sporocadaceae can have synnematal in addition to pycnidial and acervular conidiomata.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of FungiSame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207