MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6958032678 · doi:10.60692/n823a-0yc06

Genetic improvement of Bacillus thuringiensis against the cotton bollworm, Earias vitella (Fab.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), to improve the cotton yield in Pakistan

2019· article· en· W6958032678 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical, Literary, and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBacillus thuringiensisCry1AcSporeCropPEST analysisStrain (injury)Yield (engineering)PesticidePest control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the present study, C ryIAc (Crystal protein) gene was cloned under Cry3A promoter, which is known to express vegetatively as a sporulation independent promoter, transformed into acrystalliferous strain of Bacillus thuringiensis . Its potential was evaluated as a strain to be used for formulation development against the spotted cotton bollworm Earias vitella (Fab.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), the major pest of cotton, the important cash crop in Pakistan. The crystal protein produced in a new strain, i.e., Bt1 , had comparable potency as of crystal protein produced during sporulation. The new strain Bt1 had the maximum expression of Cry1Ac protein during the vegetative stage, i.e., in the first 24 h, thereby reducing the growth period until crystal protein production, from 72 to 24 h. In addition, crystal protein produced during vegetative stage under C ry3A promoter remained encapsulated within the cells, which could protect them from UV degradation and was independent of sporulation; therefore; it did not produce spores and thus is not a source to spread Bt spores in the environment. It can, therefore, be called as an environmentally friendly pesticide to control cotton pest especially bollworms and ultimately improve the yield of cotton.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.691

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)0.0000.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information SystemSame topicHistorical, Literary, and Cultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207