Taxonomy and pathogenicity of Olpidium brassicae and its allied species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The classification and physiology of the zoosporic plant-pathogen Olpidium brassicae and its relationships with the closely-related species are often confusing. This review focuses on these species and intends to differentiate them based on the literatures published since the discovery and establishment of the species by Woronin in 1878 under the name of Chytridium brassicae to current molecular era. The goal of this review is to help researchers better understand the taxonomy, the host range, and the potential role in plant health of O. brassicae-related species. To reach the goal, we reviewed the rationales behind the creation or reduction in synonymy of the different names for O. brassicae and its allied species in order to elucidate the evolution of the species concept on them based on the traditional morphological studies. Furthermore, the studies by molecular biology methods improve our knowledge and perspectives on O. brassicae and its host specificity. In particular, we clarify the differences between O. brassicae and Olpidium virulentus, and propose potential new research avenues. We therefore hope that this review will give a better perspective on Olpidium spp. and their potential role in the root microbiome of plants in natural environments and in agricultural settings.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".