Guidelines for the reliable use of high throughput sequencing technologies to detect plant pathogens and pests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-throughput sequencing (HTS) technologies have the potential to become one of the most significant advances in molecular diagnostics. Their use by researchers to detect and characterize plant pathogens and pests has been growing steadily for more than a decade and they are now envisioned as a routine diagnostic test to be deployed by plant pest diagnostics laboratories. Nevertheless, HTS technologies and downstream bioinformatics analysis of the generated datasets represent a complex process including many steps whose reliability must be ensured. The aim of the present guidelines is to provide recommendations for researchers and diagnosticians aiming to reliably use HTS technologies to detect plant pathogens and pests. These guidelines are generic and do not depend on the sequencing technology or platform. They cover all the adoption processes of HTS technologies from test selection to test validation as well as their routine implementation. A special emphasis is given to key elements to be considered: undertaking a risk analysis, designing sample panels for validation, using proper controls, evaluating performance criteria, confirming and interpreting results. These guidelines cover any HTS test used for the detection and identification of any plant pest (viroid, virus, bacteria, phytoplasma, fungi and fungus-like protists, nematodes, arthropods, plants) from any type of matrix. Overall, their adoption by diagnosticians and researchers should greatly improve the reliability of pathogens and pest diagnostics and foster the use of HTS technologies in plant health.
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 | 0.043 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.013 |
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".