Host-Parasite Interaction in Flax Rust—Its Genetics and Other Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
cultures segregated for pathogenicity, the ratio of avirulent to virulent cultures approximated the 3:1 expected if virulence on each was conditioned by a pair of recessive genes. On Ottawa 770B, 2 pairs of genes may have conditioned pathogenicity. Fifty-four pathogenic races were identified from the 67 cultures. Host-parasite interaction in flax rust may be explained by assuming a gene-for-gene relationship between rust reaction in the host and pathogenicity in the parasite. Pustule type, the criterion of both reaction and pathogenicity, is conditioned by specific pairs of genes, one in the host and the other in the parasite. In flax and the flax rust fungus, 25 such pairs of genes have been identified. Because of the gene-for-gene relationship between reaction in the host and pathogenicity in the parasite, the recessive gene complement of a uredial clone (culture) is established by determining its pathogenicity on differential varieties with single rust-conditioning genes. The homozygosity or heterozygosity of the dominant genes is established by selfing the uredial clone. Thus, a method for identifying the pathogenic genotype of races of the rust fungi has been devised. This makes possible the use of the biotype as the basic concept of race. The gene-for-gene relationship of rust reaction and pathogenicity in host and parasite facilitates the development of rust-resistant varieties and opens new approaches to studies of the origin of new races, mutation for rust reaction in the host and pathogenicity in the parasite, and the evaluation of epidemiology data, and the nature of resistance.
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".