Proportions of predominant Ergot alkaloids (Claviceps purpurea) detected in Western Canadian grains from 2014 to 2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ergot alkaloids, produced by the fungusClaviceps purpurea, are contaminants of cereal crops. Depending on various factors, the relative composition of individual ergot alkaloids can differ among samples. The objective was to determine if the percentage of individual ergot alkaloids were similar across different cereal grains (barley n=39, rye n=7, triticale n=9, wheat n=94) collected in Western Canada over different years. Ergocristine was the predominant alkaloid accounting for half of the total alkaloids in all grain types. This study documented that barley, rye, triticale and wheat collected across Western Canada had similar percentages of ergocornine (6±1%,P=0.201), ergocristine (48±2%,P=0.939), ergocryptine (17±2%,P=0.302) and ergosine (5±0.5%,P=0.239). There were differences between grain types for ergometrine (P=0.027) and ergotamine (P=0.011), which ranged between 6 to 13% and 11 to 24%, respectively, of the total alkaloid content in different cereals. Both barley and wheat alkaloid percentages were similar between 2015 and 2016; ergocornine (7±1%,P=0.969), ergocristine (47±2%,P=0.680), ergocryptine (18±2%,P=0.572), ergometrine (8±1%,P=0.080), ergosine (15±1%,P=0.119) and ergotamine (P=0.189). The ergocornine percentage was higher in wheat (P=0.017) as compared to barley for 2015/2016 samples. Ergometrine was higher in barley (P=0.002) as compared to wheat for 2015/2016 samples. While two of the alkaloid proportions varied statistically, overall proportions of the six ergot alkaloids were comparable among the four grain types collected across Western Canada. If proportions of ergot alkaloids are similar across a region, then it may be deemed acceptable to recommend a maximum total ergot alkaloid concentration for that region. However, areas that exhibit variation among the ergot alkaloid proportions, individual ergot alkaloid guidelines based on a toxic equivalence factor, may be more appropriate. In contrast, since major differences were not seen between years or grain type, from a producer perspective there may be limited biological/toxicological significance for individual alkaloid guidelines.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".