MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319766283 · doi:10.1002/ndr2.12152

First report of anthracnose on sugar beet (<i>Beta vulgaris</i>) caused by <i>Colletotrichum incanum</i> in Michigan, USA

2023· article· en· W4319766283 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Linda E. Hanson, E. M. Schlachter, Douglas H. Minier, J. Byrne, Jaime F. Willbur

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Disease Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGenBankColletotrichumBotanySugar beetAccession number (library science)SporeIntergenic regionPotato dextrose agarHorticultureAgarGeneBacteriaGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2016, sugar beet leaf samples were received at the Michigan State University plant diagnostic laboratory with distinctive oblong lesions on the petiole (Fig. 1). The lesions contained acervuli with dark setae (Fig. 2). Lesions on the blade had light and dark rings that showed similar acervuli in a 90% humidity chamber. Pure cultures from single spore isolation were grown on malt extract agar (MEA). The resulting cultures produced acervuli-like structures with dark setae distributed throughout the conidiomata. Spores were curved and had a distinct gutule (Fig. 3). Based on these characteristics, isolates were identified as a Colletotrichum sp. A representative isolate, Co16-4, was grown in liquid V8 medium with shaking for seven days. Fungal tissue was lyophilised and DNA extracted using a DNeasy Plant Mini Kit (Qiagen, Germany). Partial sequences of the internal transcribed spacer (ITS), actin (ACT), and β-tubulin (TUB2) genes were amplified according to Damm et al. (2009) and submitted to the Research Technology Support Facility (East Lansing, USA) for Sanger sequencing. Sequences were compared to data in GenBank where ITS gave the closest match to C. spaethianum (>98%), while ACT and TUB2 gave the closest match to C. incanum (99 and 96%, respectively). Sequences were submitted to GenBank as Accession Nos. OP628186 (ITS), OP627081 (ACT) and OP627082 (TUB2). Due to the BLAST search ambiguity, sequences of 19 Colletotrichum species were retrieved from GenBank as identified in Yang et al. (2014). Sequences were concatenated and manually adjusted using Geneious Prime 2021.1.1 (Biomatters Ltd., Auckland, New Zealand). Alignment and a maximum-likelihood tree were generated in Mega version 11.0.13 (Tamura et al., 2021) using the Tamura-Nei substitution model with 1000 bootstrap replicates (Fig. 4). Based on this data, isolate Co16-4 was identified as Colletotrichum incanum. Koch's postulates were fulfilled by spraying sugar beet foliage (C869) at the 10- to 12-leaf growth stage with 10ml of a spore suspension (1×104/ml with 0.1% Tween 20). After seven days, an oblong lesion was observed on the petiole and irregular lesions developed on inoculated leaves. No lesions were observed on control plants. A morphologically identical Colletotrichum sp. was isolated from lesions. Colletotrichum incanum has been reported on soybean (Yang et al., 2014), but to our knowledge, no Colletotrichum spp. have been reported causing anthracnose on beet in the United States. The symptoms and morphology of the lesions on sugar beets are consistent with beet anthracnose reported in Japan and Canada which was attributed to C. dematium (Chiko et al., 1984; Gourley, 1966). In Japan, a radish isolate, originally identified as C. dematium, was recently identified as C. incanum (Gan et al., 2016). Leaves with similar lesions were found in commercial sugarbeet fields in 2021 and 2022, indicative of continuing disease presence, but yield effects are unknown.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Disease ReportsSame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207