MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404787635 · doi:10.1094/pdis-09-24-1875-pdn

First Detection of Aster Yellows Associated with Phytoplasma on <i>Camelina sativa</i> in Montana

2024· article· en· W4404787635 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nuan Wen, Chengci Chen, Kim Campbell, Chaofu Lu, Timothy C. Paulitz

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant pathogens and resistance mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhytoplasmaBiologyAster yellowsCamelina sativaCamelinaPhyllodyLeafhopperCropHorticultureShootBotanyAgronomyPolymerase chain reactionRestriction fragment length polymorphism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

) infection. Symptoms included stunted growth, purpling of leaves, phyllody, proliferation of shoots and axillary shoots, and a reduced number or absence of pods (Figure 1). We examined 1696 single plants in a field experiment, approximately 4% in the 0.5-acre plot was found with symptoms. Plants were collected from seven locations across the field, with three replicate plants per location. Two 2-cm pieces of branches were taken from each plant for DNA extraction, using the BioSprint DNA Plant Kit (Qiagen, Germany) following the manufacturer's instructions. DNA was amplified by nested PCR first using the primers P1 (AAGAGTTTGATCCTGGCTCAGGATT) and P6 (TGGTAGGGATACCTTGTTACGACTTA), then R16F2 (ACGACTGCTGCTAAGACTGG) and R16R2 (TGACGGGCGGTGTGTACAAACCCCG), according to the protocol described by Olivier et al. (2010). These primers are universal for phytoplasma detection, which amplify a specific 16S rDNA fragment. PCR products of 1200 bp were obtained from all symptomatic plants, while no amplicons were obtained from the asymptomatic plants, including the asymptomatic parts of the partially infected plant. The PCR products were sequenced with primers R16F2 and R16R2 from both 5' and 3' ends, and the resulting sequences were submitted to GenBank (accession no. PQ134480). BLASTN search showed that the sequences we obtained were 99.46% similar to Maryland aster yellows phytoplasma (accession no. KC283215) and Sesame phyllody phytoplasma (accession no. JX448399, JX448400, JX448401, HM449958). To further confirm the identity of the pathogen, a second set of primers fTuf1 (CACATTGACCACGGTAAAAC) and rTuf1 (CCACCTTCACGAATAGAGAAC) were used (Schneider et al. 1997). These primers universally amplify phytoplasma elongation factor TU (tuf) gene fragment. PCR products around 1100 bp were obtained, sequenced with the same primers, and submitted to GenBank (accession no. PQ256823). BLASTN result shows that the sequences were 99.80% identical to aster yellows witches'-broom phytoplasma (accession no. AY277404, CP000061). These sequencing results suggest that the pathogen infecting camelina is aster yellows phytoplasma. Aster yellows has been reported on camelina in South Dakota (Byamukama et al. 2016) and Canada (Séguin-Swartz et al. 2009). Our sequence was 100% similar to the one reported in South Dakota. To our knowledge, this is the first report of aster yellows on camelina in Montana. The phytoplasma has a wide host range, primarily Asteraceae, and is vectored by the aster leafhopper (Macrosteles quadrilineatus). Weeds in the Asteraceae can act as reservoirs for the carryover of the pathogen from year to year. The pathogen can also infect canola, barley, wheat, peas, and alfalfa, which are widely grown as rotation crops in the Sidney, MT area. The aster leafhopper is commonly found on wheat in SD (Varenhorst, 2024). The distribution and impact of aster yellows on camelina productivity in Montana remains to be determined, but this discovery alerts the researchers and growers to be aware of the disease.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.163 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicPlant pathogens and resistance mechanismsFrench-language works237,207