Lack of efficacy of transgenic pea (<i>Pisum sativum</i>L.) stably expressing antifungal genes against<i>Fusarium spp.</i>in three years of confined field trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fusarium root rot is a major pea disease in Canada and only partial tolerance exists in germplasm. Transgenic technologies may hold promise but the economic benefits of genetically modified (GM) pea will need to surpass the regulatory costs, time and labor involved in bringing a GM crop to market. European pea (Pisum sativum L.) cultivars expressing four antifungal genes, 1-3 β glucanase (G), endochitinase (C) (belonging to PR proteins family), polygalacturonase inhibiting proteins (PGIPs) (P) and stilbene synthase (V) have been transformed for disease tolerance and showed disease tolerance under laboratory conditions. Transgenic lines with four antifungal genes inserted either individually or stacked through crossing were tested for their efficacy against Fusarium root rot (Fusarium avenaceum) in confined trials over three years (2013 to 2015) in comparison with two parental German lines and three Canadian lines. Superior emergence, higher fresh weight or lower disease ratings above and below ground, of transgenic lines in presence of disease inoculum were not observed consistently in the three years of field experiments when compared to the parental and Canadian lines in the presence of disease inoculum. No indication of an advantage of stacked genes over single genes was observed. Most transgenic lines had lower relative gene expression in the roots than in the leaves in greenhouse trials suggesting a possible explanation for poor tolerance to Fusarium root rot. Field trials are necessary to verify the agronomic performance and ecological relevance of the promising effects detected under laboratory conditions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".