MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7165936841 · doi:10.3724/cbb-t20-040

PCR Detection of Phytoplasma from Sweet Potato Witches' Broom Disease

2001· article· en· W7165936841 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ping LAN, Wen-Feng LI, Shui-Fang ZHU, Zhen-Yi WANG

Bibliographic record

Venue植物学通报 · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogens
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhytoplasmaBroomAster yellowsPolymerase chain reaction16S ribosomal RNAReal-time polymerase chain reactionConvolvulaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using the software of PCRDESN, two pairs of primers, R<sub>16</sub>mF<sub>2</sub>/R<sub>16</sub>mR<sub>2</sub> and R<sub>16</sub>F<sub>2</sub>/R16R<sub>2</sub>, were designed based on the 16S rDNA sequence of Phytoplasma from Michigen Aster yellows (MIAY), Elm yellows (EY), Canadian peach X-disease (CX), Jujube witches' broom (JWB) and Cherry lethal yellow (CLY) published in references. DNAs as templates were extracted from sweet potato midrib infected with or without Phytoplasma. Phytoplasma in sweet potato witches' broom was detected using PCR and Nested-PCR. A Phytoplasma-specific 1.5 kb fragment and a 1.2 kb special fragment were amplified with PCR and Nested-PCR, respectively. The minimal amount of DNA extracted from the infected sweet potato for molecular detection using PCR and Nested-PCR were 107.3 pg/μl and 0.01073 pg/μl. It is showed that the methods of PCR and Nested-PCR were very sensitive, rapid and reliable in detecting sweet potato disease associated with Phytoplasma. Furthermore, Nested-PCR based on the PCR was more sensitive than PCR about 10000 times in detecting phytoplasma in sweet potato witches' broom. The conclusion is that the molecular detection of Phytoplasma in sweet potato witches' broom is a better method nowadays.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.184 · 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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue植物学通报Same topicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogensFrench-language works237,207