Identification of <i>Brassica</i> accessions resistant to ‘old’ and ‘new’ pathotypes of <i>Plasmodiophora brassicae</i> from Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic resistance is the main tool used to manage clubroot of canola ( Brassica napus ) in Canada. However, the emergence of new virulent strains of the clubroot pathogen, Plasmodiophora brassicae , has complicated canola breeding efforts. In this study, 386 Brassica accessions were screened against five single‐spore isolates (represented by pathotypes 2F, 3H, 5I, 6M and 8N on the Canadian Clubroot Differential Set) and 17 field isolates (represented by 12 unique pathotypes: 2B, 3A, 3D, 3O, 5C, 5G, 5K, 5L, 5X, 8E, 8J and 8P) of P. brassicae to identify resistance sources effective against these strains. The results showed that one B. rapa accession ( CDCNFG ‐046, mean index of disease ( ID ) = 3.3%) and two B. nigra accessions ( CDCNFG ‐263, mean ID = 3.1%; and CDCNFG ‐262, mean ID = 4.7%) possessed excellent resistance to all 22 of the isolates evaluated. Fifty other accessions showed differential clubroot reactions (resistant, moderately resistant or susceptible), including 27 (one B. napus , two B. rapa , four B. oleracea and 20 B. nigra ) accessions that were each resistant to 8–21 P. brassicae isolates, but developed mean ID s in the range of 5.3–29.6%. The remaining 23 accessions (two B. napus , one B . rapa , five B . oleracea and 15 B. nigra ) were each resistant to 3–13 isolates, but developed mean ID s in the range of 30.3–47.0%. The three accessions that showed absolute resistance and the 50 accessions that showed differential clubroot reactions could be used to breed for resistance to the new P. brassicae strains.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".