MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037371493 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0230403

Development and evaluation of a loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay for the detection of Tomato brown rugose fruit virus (ToBRFV)

2020· article· en· W3037371493 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alian Sarkes, Heting Fu, David Feindel, Michael W. Harding, Jie Feng

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentAlberta Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoop-mediated isothermal amplificationPepperTobamovirusDetection limitRNABiologyVirologyVirusMolecular biologyPlant virusHorticultureChemistryChromatographyGeneticsGeneDNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tomato brown rugose fruit virus (ToBRFV) is a member of Tobamovirus infecting tomato and pepper. Within North America, both the United States and Mexico consider ToBRFV to be a regulated pest. In Canada, the presence of ToBRFV has been reported, but an efficient diagnostic system has not yet been established. Here, we describe the development and assessment of a loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP)-based assay to detect ToBRFV. The LAMP test was efficient and robust, and results could be obtained within 35 min with an available RNA sample. Amplification was possible when either water bath or oven were used to maintain the temperature at isothermal conditions (65°C), and results could be read by visual observation of colour change. Detection limit of the LAMP was eight target RNA molecules. Under the experimental conditions tested, LAMP was as sensitive as qPCR and 100 times more sensitive than the currently used RT-PCR. We recommend this sensitive, efficient LAMP protocol to be used for routine lab testing of ToBRFV.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.100 · 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 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

Citations56
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207