MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412480833 · doi:10.3390/jof11070528

Fusarium Species Infecting Greenhouse-Grown Cannabis (Cannabis sativa) Plants Show Potential for Mycotoxin Production in Inoculated Inflorescences and from Natural Inoculum Sources

2025· article· en· W4412480833 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zamir K. Punja, Sheryl A. Tittlemier, Sean Walkowiak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fungi · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyMycotoxinFusariumInflorescenceCannabis sativaInoculationGreenhouseBotanyCannabisHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several species of Fusarium are reported to infect inflorescences of high-THC-containing cannabis (Cannabis sativa L.) plants grown in greenhouses in Canada. These include F. graminearum, F. sporotrichiodes, F. proliferatum, and, to a lesser extent, F. oxysporum and F. solani. The greatest concern surrounding the infection of cannabis by these Fusarium species, which cause symptoms of bud rot, is the potential for the accumulation of mycotoxins that may go undetected. In the present study, both naturally infected and artificially infected inflorescence tissues were tested for the presence of fungal-derived toxins using HPLC-MS/MS analysis. Naturally infected cannabis tissues were confirmed to be infected by both F. avenaceum and F. graminearum using PCR. Pure cultures of these two species and F. sporotrichiodes were inoculated onto detached inflorescences of two cannabis genotypes, and after 7 days, they were dried and assayed for mycotoxin presence. In these assays, all Fusarium species grew prolifically over the tissue surface. Tissues infected by F. graminearum contained 3-acetyl DON, DON, and zearalenone in the ranges of 0.13–0.40, 1.18–1.91, and 31.8 to 56.2 μg/g, respectively, depending on the cannabis genotype. In F. sporotrichiodes-infected samples, HT2 and T2 mycotoxins were present at 13.9 and 10.9 μg/g in one genotype and were lower in the other. In F. avenaceum-inoculated tissues, the mycotoxins enniatin A, enniatin A1, enniatin B, and enniatin B1 were produced at varying concentrations, depending on the isolate and cannabis genotype. Unexpectedly, these tissues also contained detectable levels of 3-acetyl DON, DON, and zearalenone, which was attributed to apre-existing natural infection by F. graminearum that was confirmed by RT-qPCR. Beauvericin was detected in tissues infected by F. avenaceum and F. sporotrichiodes, but not by F. graminearum. Naturally infected, dried inflorescences from which F. avenaceum was recovered contained beauvericin, enniatin A1, enniatin B, and enniatin B1 as expected. Uninoculated cannabis inflorescences were free of mycotoxins except for culmorin at 0.348 μg/g, reflecting pre-existing infection by F. graminearum. The mycotoxin levels were markedly different between the two cannabis genotypes, despite comparable mycelial colonization. Tall fescue plants growing in the vicinity of the greenhouse were shown to harbor F. avenaceum and F. graminearum, suggesting a likely external source of inoculum. Isolates of both species from tall fescue produced mycotoxins when inoculated onto cannabis inflorescences. These findings demonstrate that infection by F. graminearum and F. avenaceum, either from artificial inoculation or natural inoculum originating from tall fescue plants, can lead to mycotoxin accumulation in cannabis inflorescences. However, extensive mycelial colonization following prolonged incubation of infected tissues under high humidity conditions is required. Inoculations with Penicillium citrinum and Aspergillus ochraceus under these conditions produced no detectable mycotoxins. The mycotoxins alternariol and tentoxin were detected in several inflorescence samples, likely as a result of natural infection by Alternaria spp. Fusarium avenaceum is reported to infect cannabis inflorescences for the first time and produces mycotoxins in diseased tissues.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.589
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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