MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037224654 · doi:10.1094/php-03-20-0023-br

The Host Range of Subgroup 16SrII-X Phytoplasma Extends to Globe Amaranth and Other Wild Plants in Saudi Arabia

2020· article· en· W3037224654 on OpenAlexaff
Ayman F. Omar, Abdullah S. Alsohim, Khaled A. Al‐Jamhan, Edel Pérez‐López

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Health Progress · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogens
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhytoplasmaAmaranthBiologyBroomBotany16S ribosomal RNAHorticulturePolymerase chain reactionRestriction fragment length polymorphismGeneAgronomyGeneticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the number of plant hosts affected by peanut witches’-broom group (16SrII) phytoplasma in Saudi Arabia has increased at a concerning speed. Since 2015 symptoms resembling phytoplasma-related diseases have been reported in Al-Qassim region affecting the wild plants globe amaranth, amaranthus, black nightshade, and buckthorn. Except for globe amaranth, which showed flower deformations, the other plants showed witches’ broom and little leaves. All the symptomatic samples collected in this study were positive for phytoplasma using universal primers targeting the 16S rRNA-encoding gene. Sequence analysis identified the phytoplasma as a member of the 16SrII-X subgroup, originally described in Saudi Arabia by our group. This is the first report of globe amaranth, amaranthus, black nightshade, and buckthorn as phytoplasma hosts in Saudi Arabia, and the first report worldwide of globe amaranth as a phytoplasma host and buckthorn being affected by 16SrII phytoplasma group.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant Health ProgressSame topicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogensFrench-language works237,207