MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7134807724 · doi:10.26181/13520048

First Report of Grapevine Rupestris Vein Feathering Virus in Grapevine in Australia

2021· article· W7134807724 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Q Wu, M.A. Kehoe, WM Kinoti, CP Wang, A Rinaldo, S Tyerman, N Habili, Fiona Constable

Bibliographic record

VenueLa Trobe University · 2021
Typearticle
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenomeVirusRNAGenusSequence assemblyPlant virusRNA extraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grapevine rupestris vein feathering virus (GRVFV; tentative genus Marafivirus; family Tymoviridae ) was first detected from a Greek grapevine (Vitis vinifera), with asteroid mosaic-like symptoms (El Beaino et al. 2001; Ghanem-Sabanadzovic et al. 2003) and was also infected with grapevine fleck virus. GRVFV has been detected in the United States, South Africa, Canada, Spain, China, New Zealand, Brazil, Germany, Korea, Slovakia, Hungary and Pakistan (Cho et al. 2018; Mahmood et al. 2019).Transmission vectors are currently unknown. In 2018, nine grapevine samples were collected between May to July in South Australia (SA) and Western Australia (WA) (Table S1), were analysed by high-throughput sequencing (HTS) to characterise grapevine viruses in Australian vineyards. Total RNA or double stranded RNA was extracted from grapevine canes using RNeasy 96 QIAcube HT kit (Qiagen) with MacKenzie buffer (MacKenzie et al. 1997) or using CF-11 (Balijja et al. 2008). Libraries were prepared using the NEBNext® Ultra II RNA library Prep Kit (NEB) or TruSeq® Stranded mRNA Prep kit (Illumina) with Ribo-Zero®gold plant kit for ribosomal depletion (Illumina, San Diego, CA). Libraries were sequenced using Illumina Miseq (SA) or Hiseq (WA) technology with 2x300 (SA) or 2x100 (WA) paired end reads which were trimmed using Trim Galore! (0.4.0) or BBmap (38.20), respectively. De novo assembly, using the SPAdes (version 3.12.0) genome assembler with default settings, resulted in twelve near full length GRVFV genomes (6713-6737nt), eight sequences from the WA samples and four from the SA samples. WA samples 171 and 178 and SA sample BV each had two distinct GRVFV molecular variants. Variants 171-1 and 171-2 (GenBank accessions MT084811, MT084812) from sample 171 shared 83.39% nucleotide (nt) identity. Variants 178-1 and 178-2 (MT084813, MT084814) from sample 178 shared 83.54% nt identity. Variants BV6799 and BV8822 (MN974274, MN974275) from sample BV shared 82.85% nt identity. Only one GRVFV sequence was obtained from all other samples. The genome of SA isolate LC1 (MN974273) was confirmed by RT-PCR amplification and Sanger sequencing of overlapping genome regions. Tissue from the infected LC1 isolate has been deposited into the Victorian plant pathogen reference collection (VPRI accession No. 43698). When the genomes of all Australian isolates were compared, they had 78.94% to 94.37 % nt identity with each other. The SA isolates LC1, BV8822, BV6799, and SEL-L (MN974276), and the WA isolates 172 (MT084807), 179 (MT084808), 180 (MT084809), and 182 (MT084810) were most closely related to the Swiss isolate CHASS (KY513702; 82.87% to 85.46% nt identity). The WA isolates 171-1, 171-2, 178-1 and 178-2 were most closely related to the New Zealand isolate Ch8021 (MF000325; 83.21% to 93.87%). Grapevine leafroll-associated virus 1 (GLRaV-1), GLRaV-3, GLRaV-4 (strain 6 and 9), grapevine virus A, grapevine rupestris stem pitting associated virus, grapevine yellow speckle viroid 1 and hop stunt viroid were also identified in the sequencing data. This is the first report of GRVFV in Australia. All WA samples were collected during dormancy and symptoms were not observed. Sample LC1 from SA had Shiraz disease, the other SA samples were asymptomatic, and none had asteroid mosaic-like symptoms. Further research is required to determine its distribution and association with disease in Australia.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLa Trobe UniversitySame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207