MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802423274 · doi:10.1094/pdis-02-18-0342-re

Quantification of<i>Agrobacterium vitis</i>from Grapevine Nursery Stock and Vineyard Soil using Droplet Digital PCR

2018· article· en· W2802423274 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tanja M. Voegel, Louise M. Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVineyardBiologyRhizosphereGrowing seasonHorticultureAgronomyBotanyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current detection methodologies for Agrobacterium vitis, causing crown gall of grapevines, are time intensive and lack the ability to quantify pathogen abundance in nursery stock and soil. Information on pathogen abundance is a key component to develop management strategies. The aim of this study was to develop a rapid and sensitive quantification assay for grapevine nursery stock and vineyard soil via droplet digital polymerase chain reaction targeting the virA gene. DNA isolated from roots of dormant grapevines originating from nurseries in Germany, California, and Ontario were tested for virA abundance. Bacterial numbers varied with grapevine origin; plants from California had the highest numbers. In addition, rhizosphere soil from two vineyards in the Okanagan valley in British Columbia was tested over a growing season. Sampling time during the season did not affect virA gene abundance. The older vineyard had higher soil A. vitis populations than the younger vineyard. The assay developed here has potential for use in national clean plant programs to prevent import of infected grapevine nursery stock and to test vineyard soil for abundance of the pathogen before planting.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations23
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207