MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211116066 · doi:10.3390/plants10112355

Grapevine Virology in the Third-Generation Sequencing Era: From Virus Detection to Viral Epitranscriptomics

2021· review· en· W3211116066 on OpenAlexafffund
Vahid Jalali Javaran, Peter Moffett, Pierre Lemoyne, Dong Xu, Charith Raj Adkar‐Purushothama, Mamadou L. Fall

Bibliographic record

VenuePlants · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsMinionNanopore sequencingDNA sequencingBiologyPlant virusVirologyVirusComputational biologyBiotechnologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L.) is the most cultivated fruit plant. It has a significant impact on the economies of many countries through wine and fresh and dried fruit production. In recent years, the grape and wine industry has been facing outbreaks of known and emerging viral diseases across the world. Although high-throughput sequencing (HTS) has been used extensively in grapevine virology, the application and potential of third-generation sequencing have not been explored in understanding grapevine viruses and their impact on the grapevine. Nanopore sequencing, a third-generation technology, can be used for the direct sequencing of both RNA and DNA with minimal infrastructure. Compared to other HTS methods, the MinION nanopore platform is faster and more cost-effective and allows for long-read sequencing. Due to the size of the MinION device, it can be easily carried for field viral disease surveillance. This review article discusses grapevine viruses, the principle of third-generation sequencing platforms, and the application of nanopore sequencing technology in grapevine virus detection, virus-plant interactions, as well as the characterization of viral RNA modifications.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 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

Citations25
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlantsSame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207