MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393039054 · doi:10.3390/jof10030233

Genetic Diversity and Reproduction Trends of Phytophthora infestans in Estonia: EU_41_A2 Detected without an Indication of Clonal Reproduction

2024· article· en· W4393039054 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Britt Puidet, Mati Koppel, Riinu Kiiker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fungi · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Pathogens and Resistance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Regional Development FundEesti MaaülikoolMinistry of Rural AffairsHaridus- ja TeadusministeeriumEesti TeadusagentuurEuropean Commission
KeywordsPhytophthora infestansBiologyGenetic diversityPopulationEvolutionary biologyReproductionGenetic variationMating typeAlleleGeneticsPopulation geneticsGeneDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores the population dynamics of Phytophthora infestans in Estonia from 2005 to 2022, focusing on genetic diversity and potential shifts in reproductive strategies. In total, 153 P. infestans isolates were collected throughout Estonia over ten growing seasons. Genotyping revealed considerable genetic diversity, with most isolates not corresponding to known multilocus genotypes (MLGs). Still, instances of invasive clonal lineages were observed, notably EU_41_A2. The data indicate the likelihood of random mating rather than clonal reproduction in all the analyzed years. The principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) results revealed no distinct clustering among the sampling years. Statistical analysis and the minimum spanning network (MSN) indicated low genetic differentiation between years with minimal fluctuations in allele frequencies. The continuous monitoring of P. infestans populations is essential for detecting any changes from the current evolutionary trajectory and implement effective disease management strategies, especially considering the recent emergence of EU_41_A2 in the Nordics and the potential impacts of climate change.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of FungiSame topicPlant Pathogens and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207