MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097922760 · doi:10.3390/pathogens9110923

The Destructive Fungal Pathogen Botrytis cinerea—Insights from Genes Studied with Mutant Analysis

2020· review· en· W3097922760 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicholas Cheung, Lei Tian, Xueru Liu, Xin Li

Bibliographic record

VenuePathogens · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFungal Plant Pathogen Control
Canadian institutionsCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBotrytis cinereaConidiationBiologyVirulenceMutantPathogenGenePathogenicityFungal pathogenHyphaGenomeOrganismMicrobiologyBotrytisHuman pathogenGeneticsComputational biologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Botrytis cinerea is one of the most destructive fungal pathogens affecting numerous plant hosts, including many important crop species. As a molecularly under-studied organism, its genome was only sequenced at the beginning of this century and it was recently updated with improved gene annotation and completeness. In this review, we summarize key molecular studies on B. cinerea developmental and pathogenesis processes, specifically on genes studied comprehensively with mutant analysis. Analyses of these studies have unveiled key genes in the biological processes of this pathogen, including hyphal growth, sclerotial formation, conidiation, pathogenicity and melanization. In addition, our synthesis has uncovered gaps in the present knowledge regarding development and virulence mechanisms. We hope this review will serve to enhance the knowledge of the biological mechanisms behind this notorious fungal pathogen.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations135
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePathogensSame topicFungal Plant Pathogen ControlFrench-language works237,207