Whole-genome DNA similarity and population structure of Plasmodiophora brassicae strains from Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clubroot is an important disease of brassica crops world-wide. The causal agent, Plasmodiophora brassicae, has been present in Canada for over a century but was first identified on canola (Brassica napus) in Alberta, Canada in 2003. Genetic resistance to clubroot in an adapted canola cultivar has been available since 2009, but resistance breakdown was detected in 2013 and new pathotypes are increasing rapidly. Information on genetic similarity among pathogen populations across Canada could be useful in estimating the genetic variation in pathogen populations, predicting the effect of subsequent selection pressure on changes in the pathogen population over time, and even in identifying the origin of the initial pathogen introduction to canola in Alberta. RESULTS: The genomic sequences of 43 strains (34 field collections, 9 single-spore isolates) of P. brassicae from Canada, the United States, and China clustered into five clades based on SNP similarity. The strains from Canada separated into four clades, with two containing mostly strains from the Prairies (provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba) and two that were mostly from the rest of Canada or the USA. Several strains from China formed a separate clade. More than one pathotype and host were present in all four Canadian clades. The initial pathotypes from canola on the Prairies clustered separately from the pathotypes on canola that could overcome resistance to the initial pathotypes. Similarly, at one site in central Canada where resistance had broken down, about half of the genes differed (based on SNPs) between strains before and after the breakdown. CONCLUSION: Clustering based on genome-wide DNA sequencing demonstrated that the initial pathotypes on canola on the Prairies clustered separately from the new virulent pathotypes on the Prairies. Analysis indicated that these 'new' pathotypes were likely present in the pathogen population at very low frequency, maintained through balancing selection, and increased rapidly in response to selection from repeated exposure to host resistance.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".