MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015733678 · doi:10.3390/plants9040466

Validation of a Preformulated, Field Deployable, Recombinase Polymerase Amplification Assay for Phytophthora Species

2020· article· en· W3015733678 on OpenAlexaff
Austin G. McCoy, Timothy D. Miles, Guillaume J. Bilodeau, P. W. Woods, C. L. Blomquist, Frank N. Martin, Martin I. Chilvers

Bibliographic record

VenuePlants · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Pathogens and Resistance
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecombinase Polymerase AmplificationPhytophthoraMolecular biologyBiologyChromatographyNucleic acidPolymerase chain reactionPolymeraseDNAChemistryLoop-mediated isothermal amplificationBiochemistryBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA) assays are valuable molecular diagnostic tools that can detect and identify plant pathogens in the field without time-consuming DNA extractions. Historically, RPA assay reagents were commercially available as a lyophilized pellet in microfuge strip tubes, but have become available in liquid form more recently—both require the addition of primers and probes prior to use, which can be challenging to handle in a field setting. Lyophilization of primers and probes, along with RPA reagents, contained within a single tube limits the risk of contamination, eliminates the need for refrigeration, as the lyophilized reagents are stable at ambient temperatures, and simplifies field use of the assays. This study investigates the potential effect of preformulation on assay performance using a previously validated Phytophthora genus-specific RPA assay, lyophilized with primers and probes included with the RPA reagents. The preformulated lyophilized Phytophthora RPA assay was compared with a quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assay and commercially available RPA kits using three qPCR platforms (BioRad CFX96, QuantStudio 6 and Applied Biosystems ViiA7) and one isothermal platform (Axxin T16-ISO RPA), with experiments run in four separate labs. The assay was tested for sensitivity (ranging from 500 to 0.33 pg of DNA) and specificity using purified oomycete DNA, as well as crude extracts of Phytophthora-infected and non-infected plants. The limit of detection (LOD) using purified DNA was 33 pg in the CFX96 and ViiA7 qPCR platforms using the preformulated kits, while the Axxin T16-ISO RPA chamber and the QuantStudio 6 platform could detect down to 3.3 pg with or without added plant extract. The LOD using a crude plant extract for the BioRad CFX96 was 330 pg, whereas the LOD for the ViiA7 system was 33 pg. These trials demonstrate the consistency and uniformity of pathogen detection with preformulated RPA kits for Phytophthora detection when conducted by different labs using different instruments for measuring results.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlantsSame topicPlant Pathogens and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207