MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810993462 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0197025

The cup fungus Pestalopezia brunneopruinosa is Pestalotiopsis gibbosa and belongs to Sordariomycetes

2018· article· en· W2810993462 on OpenAlexaff
Kyoko Watanabe, Shunsuke Nozawa, Tom Hsiang, Brenda E. Callan

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of Guelph
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsBiologyConidiumBotanyPestalotiopsisAscocarpDothideomycetesAscomycotaTaxonomy (biology)GeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pestalopezia brunneopruinosa, the type species of Pestalopezia in Leotiomycetes, produces typical cup-shaped ascomata. Because its asexual morph has conidia comprised of five cells including apical and basal appendages and three pigmented median cells, it was first described as Pestalotia gibbosa, which belongs to Sordariomycetes. This contradiction has not been resolved due to the difficulty in isolating this fungus in culture. In this study, we isolated separate strains from the sexual morph and the asexual morph for molecular analysis. Phylogenetic trees of Sporocadaceae based on internal transcribed spacer, partial β-tubulin, and partial translation elongation factor 1-alpha sequence datasets revealed that both strains fall into the same taxon, in a clade in Pestalotiopsis sensu stricto alongside P. gaultheriae and P. spathulata. We provide the first evidence that fungi producing cup-shaped ascomata in Pestalotiopsis belong to Sordariomycetes, and we have proposed the transfer of Pestalopezia brunneopruinosa to Pestalotiopsis gibbosa.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207