MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241696066 · doi:10.21275/art2016847

Phenotypic, Biochemical and Molecular Diversity of Phoma lingam Fungal Isolates Collected from Saskatchewan, Canada

2016· article· en· W4241696066 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rafiq Ahad, G. Séguin-Swartz, R. K. Gugel, Birger Koopmann

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFungal Biology and Applications
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Guelph
FundersDeutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
KeywordsPhomaFungal DiversityBiologyPhenotypeDiversity (politics)BotanyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The population of Phoma lingam associated with blackleg disease of canola (Brassica napus) is highly polymorphic, and infect various Brassicaceae species, including Thlaspi arvense (stinkweed). In order to determine the population composition and pathogenicity of P. lingam infecting T. arvense, 18 isolates recovered from T. arvense (designated 'Thl' isolates) from different crop fields of Saskatchewan were compared with an aggressive (IBCN 2) and eleven less/non-aggressive reference strains. No common morphological, biochemical and pathogenic characteristics were found between 'Thl' isolates and IBCN 2 strain. DNA fingerprinting and phylogenetic analysis of ITS-rRNA gene sequences revealed that the 'Thl' P. lingam population of Saskatchewan is highly heterogeneous and comprised of at least eight genotypes. Over 50 percentage of 'Thl' isolates clustered with different less/non aggressive reference strains belonging to L. biglobosa. Interestingly, a group of' Thl' isolates clustered with an aggressive reference strain, IBCN 2. Therefore, regular monitoring is required to determine if the 'Thl' P. lingam population of western Canadian provinces is migrating from non-aggressive toward aggressive state.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)Same topicFungal Biology and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207