Culture collections as a source of historic strains for genomic studies in plant pathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The first microbial culture collection was established in 1890, and subsequently, over the course of the twentieth century, the number of culture collections grew substantially. One such collection was the CABI-IMI Genetic Resources Collection, informally initiated at the origins of the Commonwealth Mycological Institute in 1920 and established as a UK National Collection in 1947. Its holdings reflect the activities of CABI in agriculture and the environment. Like many collections, it was originally established as a taxonomic reference resource. Over the years, deposits have included strains isolated from disease outbreaks in major crops from all parts of the world. Recent developments in genome sequencing technology and bioinformatic analysis have opened up the potential to characterise historic strains to shed more insights on their biology and evolution. In this paper we describe how the resources held within the CABI-IMI culture collection have helped track the emergence and divergence of Fusarium xylarioides, the coffee wilt pathogen, with a specific focus on the evolution of pathogenicity. Such studies illustrate the value held within the world’s culture collections—their importance in underpinning science and developing our understanding and evolution of plant diseases as well as how the impact of disease can be mitigated in response to climate change, in order to increase yields and feed the world’s burgeoning population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".