Differences in Saprophytic Growth, Virulence, Genomes, and Secretomes of Ilyonectria robusta and I. mors-panacis Isolates from Roots of American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comparison of the virulence, saprophytic growth, and genomes of 12 isolates of Ilyonectria mors-panacis and 4 isolates of I. robusta from Canada pathogenic to Panax quinquefolius was made. There were no significant differences in the average lesion size on detached roots between isolates of the two Ilyonectria species or isolates that originated from infected roots in first- or second-crop ginseng soils. This did not support the hypotheses that I. mors-panacis is always more virulent than I. robusta or that there is selection for higher virulence during the first crop. However, the average growth rate on potato dextrose agar for I. robusta was significantly greater than that of I. mors-panacis, and the average total genome size of I. robusta isolates was significantly smaller with a significantly higher GC content. On dendrograms based on nucleotide sequences of all predicted exons of the genomes, I. robusta isolates were distinguishable from I. mors-panacis isolates, which were similar but could be separated into types 1 and 2. The difference between type 1 and type 2 I. mors-panacis was not related to geographical origin, virulence, growth rate, or mating type. However, the division was also observed for the total predicted secretome, most notably small secreted cysteine-rich proteins and secreted proteases, indicating that type 1 and 2 isolates of I. mors-panacis may interact differently with their environment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".