MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210409025 · doi:10.3791/63438

Culturing and Screening the Plant Parasitic Nematode <em>Ditylenchus dipsaci</em>

2022· article· en· W4210409025 on OpenAlexafffund
Savina R. Cammalleri, Jessica Knox, Peter J. Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNematode management and characterization studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCropInfestationNematodeBiotechnologyPopulationBiologyToxicologyAgronomyEcologyMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plant-parasitic nematodes (PPNs) destroy over 12% of global food crops every year, which equates to roughly 157 billion dollars (USD) lost annually. With a growing global population and limited arable land, controlling PPN infestation is critical for food production. Compounding the challenge of maximizing crop yields are the mounting restrictions on effective pesticides because of a lack of nematode selectivity. Hence, developing new and safe chemical nematicides is vital to food security. In this protocol, the culture and collection of the PPN species Ditylenchus dipsaci are demonstrated. D. dipsaci is both economically damaging and relatively resistant to most modern nematicides. The current work also explains how to use these nematodes in screens for novel small molecule nematicides and reports on data collection and analysis methodologies. The demonstrated pipeline affords a throughput of thousands of compounds per week and can be easily adapted for use with other PPN species such as Pratylenchus penetrans. The techniques described herein can be used to discover new nematicides, which may, in turn, be further developed into highly selective commercial products that safely combat PPNs to help feed an increasingly hungry world.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicNematode management and characterization studiesFrench-language works237,207