Uncovering Fusarium Species Associated with Fusarium Wilt in Chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.) and the Identification of Significant Marker–Trait Associations for Resistance in the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas’ Chickpea Collection Using SSR Markers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enhancing plants’ resistance against FW is crucial for ensuring a sustainable global chickpea production. The present study focuses on the identification of fungal pathogens and the assessment of ninety-six chickpea samples for Fusarium wilt from the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA)’s collection. Eight fungal isolates were recovered from the symptomatic chickpeas. Polyphasic identification was conducted by comparing the internal transcribed spacer region (ITS), the elongation factor 1-α (tef1-α), and beta-tubulin (tub2). Among them, Neocosmospora solani, N. nelsonii, N. falciformis, N. brevis, Fusarium brachygibbosum, and F. gossypinum were identified. An analysis of the genetic diversity of chickpeas, using 69 polymorphic simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers, revealed a total of 191 alleles across all markers, with, on average, each SSR marker detecting approximately 2.8 alleles. A STRUCTURE analysis delineated lines into two distinct sub-groups (K = 2). Association mapping, using the generalized linear model (GLM) and mixed linear model (MLM) approaches, identified six and five marker–trait associations (MTAs) for FW resistance, respectively. Notably, these TA42, TA125 (A) and TA125 (B), TA37, and TAASH MTAs, commonly found in both models, emerge as potential candidates for the targeted enhancement of FW resistance in chickpeas. To our knowledge, this study represents an inaugural report on the association mapping of genomic loci governing FW resistance in chickpeas from the ICARDA’s accessions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".