MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401829426 · doi:10.1094/pdis-05-24-1107-pdn

First Report of Bean Leafroll Virus in Pea and Chickpea in Canada

2024· article· en· W4401829426 on OpenAlexaffabout
Simin Sabaghian, Dinesh Babu Paudel, Ningxing Zhou, Sean M. Prager

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyChlorosisLuteovirusPlant virusVirusVirologyPotato leafroll virusCropHorticulturePolymerase chain reactionGeneAgronomyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bean leafroll virus (BLRV; Bean leafroll virus), a single-stranded RNA virus in the genus Luteovirus, is phloem-limited and primarily transmitted by aphids in a non-propagative, persistent manner (Rashed et al., 2018; Kidanemariam and Abraham, 2023). BLRV infects various legumes and has been reported from major pulse-growing regions worldwide (Agindotan et al., 2019) but not in the Canadian Prairies. Its impact on crop yield varies with plant and virus genotypes and the timing of infection. Some pea fields have experienced disease rates of up to 80% (Clement et al., 2020; Hampton, 1983). Throughout the 2022 growing season (June and July), pulse fields from across Saskatchewan were randomly selected and surveyed, and symptomatic plants demonstrating leaf yellowing and chlorosis were collected and stored at -80°C before processing. Observed symptoms included necrotic spots, chlorosis, leaf mottling, leaf rolling in peas, severe bright yellowing, and leaf marginal necrosis in chickpeas. BLRV detection was performed on 35 leaves of the collected samples using both Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) and Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). ELISA testing followed the manufacturer's protocol using a commercial kit (Nano Diagnostics, San Jose, CA, USA). Total RNAs were extracted from the frozen samples using TRIzol (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). For the detection of the diverse BLRV isolates, sequences of various isolates were aligned and primers were specifically designed in-house, targeting the virus's highly conserved regions on the GP3 and 3' UTR (see Supplementary material). Additional primers were also designed targeting coat protein (CP) coding regions which were previously used for BLRV detection (Agindotan et al. 2019; Larsen & Webster 1999). PCR testing of 35 symptomatic samples including 12 pea plants and 23 chickpea plants, identified the presence of BLRV in two symptomatic samples, one each from a field pea (Pisum sativum L. var. CDC Inca) and a desi-type chickpea (Cicer arietinum L. var. CDC Leader). The infected pea and chickpea samples were found in Saskatoon, SK (Coordinates: 52°9'27''N,106°34'14"W), and the Leader area, southwest of Saskatchewan, SK (Coordinates: 50°52'14"N,109°23'11"W), respectively. PCR amplicons were purified and sent for Sanger sequencing. The reads were assembled to generate 1666 and 323 nucleotides from pea and chickpea, respectively, with a minimum of 2X coverage. Partial nucleotide sequences of the BLRV isolates obtained from pea (PsSK1) and chickpea (CaSK1) (GenBank accession numbers: PP240429, PP266588) showed (1521/1574 bp) 96.63% and (316/323 bp) 97.83% similarity with a BLRV reference isolate sequence (NC_003369) and to an isolate from Argentina (KR261610) which was reported on Medicago sativa L. with (1555/1574 bp) 98.79% and (319/323 bp) 98.76% similarity, correspondingly. Both infected samples were confirmed to be BLRV-infected through the ELISA and exhibited a high interaction ratio (PsSK1: 0.319 and CsSK1: 0.245) compared to a positive control (0.292) after 30 minutes as measured at 450 nm. This is the first report of BLRV in the pulse-growing region of the Canadian Prairies. In Saskatchewan, there is no history of BLRV despite the large amount of area growing susceptible crops. Therefore, the survey project that this study was part of was not intended to evaluate the severity of BLRV but rather to determine if there is any virus present that might have been overlooked. The samples were therefore taken randomly, with a focus on the number of fields and geographic coverage rather than focusing on multiple plants per field. Moreover, fields were not chosen based on symptoms but rather at random. Although, plants within fields were chosen because they displayed symptoms. Typically, a disease note includes estimates of severity and potential risk; however, that is not possible for this study. Rather, the fact that it was detected indicates a greater risk than previously perceived, since it was assumed that BLRV was not present. These findings highlight the need for further research on the virus's current status, its impact on crop production, and the resistance of pulse varieties grown in Saskatchewan.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207