Monitoring the Spread of Grapevine Viruses in Vineyards of Contrasting Agronomic Practices: A Metagenomic Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the transmission of grapevine viruses, specifically grapevine red blotch virus (GRBV) and grapevine Pinot gris virus (GPGV), in vineyards in Niagara Region, Ontario, Canada. Forty sentinel vines that were confirmed free of GRBV and GPGV by both high-throughput sequencing (HTS) and endpoint polymerase chain reaction (PCR) were introduced to two vineyards (one organic and one conventional) that were heavily infected with both GRBV and GPGV. Four months post-introduction, the sentinel vines were relocated to a phytotron. The HTS results from 15 months post-introduction revealed a widespread infection of GPGV among the sentinel vines but did not detect any GRBV. The GPGV infection rate of sentinel vines in the organic vineyard (13/18) was higher than in the conventional vineyard (1/19). The possibility of an alternative viral reservoir was assessed by testing the most abundant plants in between rows (Medicago sativa, Trifolium repens, Cirsium arvense and Taraxacum officinale), perennial plants in border areas (Fraxinus americana, Ulmus americana, Rhamnus cathartica) and wild grape (unknown Vitis sp.). The HTS result showed that cover crops and perennial plants did not harbor any grapevine viruses, while 4/5 wild grapes tested positive for GPGV but not GRBV. A pairwise sequence identity analysis revealed high similarities between the GPGV isolates found in the established vines on the vineyard and the newly contracted GPGV isolates in the sentinel vines, implicating a recent transmission event. This work provides novel insights into the spread of grapevine viruses in Niagara Region and is also the first direct proof of the spread of GPGV in natural vineyard conditions in North America.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".