Suppression of Canola (<i>Brassica napus</i>) Resistance by Virulent Isolates of <i>Plasmodiophora brassicae</i> (Clubroot) During Primary Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The planting of clubroot resistant (CR) canola (Brassica napus) is the most effective method to manage clubroot. Since 2013, many Plasmodiophora brassicae isolates capable of overcoming resistance have been detected, often in mixtures with avirulent isolates. To improve understanding of the effect of low concentrations of virulent isolates on host resistance, three CR canola cultivars (45H29, L135C, and L241C) were inoculated with pairs of isolates representing virulent/avirulent pathotypes (2*/2, 3*/3, and 5*/5) collected after or before the introduction of CR canola, respectively. Seven-day-old seedlings of each cultivar were incubated for 2 days in low concentrations (1 × 103 spores/ml) of the virulent isolates, followed by a second inoculation with a high concentration (1 × 107 spores/ml) of the avirulent isolates. Positive controls comprised seedlings inoculated with low concentrations of the virulent isolates followed by high concentrations of the virulent isolates (PC1) or only with high concentrations of virulent isolates (PC2). Negative controls comprised seedlings inoculated only with high concentrations of the avirulent isolates (NC1) or only with low concentrations of the virulent isolates (NC2). Clubroot severity was significantly higher in all nine experimental treatments (low virulent plus high avirulent) than in the negative control NC1 (high avirulent) but was lower in the experimental treatments than in the positive controls (PC1 and PC2). Low concentrations of virulent isolates alone (NC2) caused moderate clubroot. Disease severity correlated well with P. brassicae biomass in canola as determined by quantitative PCR analysis 28 to 35 days after inoculation. This study revealed that low concentrations of virulent isolates compromised canola resistance for infection by avirulent isolates.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".