Bacteriophages of Erwinia amylovora and their potential use in biological control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forty-four bacteriophage isolates of Erwinia amy/ovora, the causal agent of fire \nblight, were collected from sites in and around the Niagara Region of Southern Ontario \nin the summer of 1998. Phages were isolated only from sites where fire blight was \npresent. Thirty-seven of these phages were isolated from the soil surrounding infected \ntrees, with the remainder isolated from aerial plant tissue samples. A mixture of six E. \namy/ovora bacterial host strains was used to enrich field samples in order to avoid the \nselection bias of a single-host system. Molecular characterization of the phages with a \ncombination of peR and restriction endonuclease digestions showed that six distinct \nphage types were isolated. Ten phage isolates related to the previously characterized \nE. amy/ovora phage PEa1 were isolated, with some divergence of molecular markers \nbetween phages isolated from different sites. The host ranges of the phages revealed \nthat certain types were unable to efficiently lyse some E. amy/ovora strains, and that \nsome types were able to lyse the epiphytic bacterium Pantoea agg/omerans. Biological \ncontrol of E. amy/ovora by the bacteriophages was assessed in a bioassay using discs \nof immature pear fruit. Twenty-three phage isolates were able to significantly suppress \nthe incidence of bacterial exudate on the pear disc surface. Quantification of the \nbacterial population remaining on the disc surface indicated that population reductions \nof up to 97% were obtainable by phage treatment, but that elimination of bacteria from \nthe surface was not possible with this model system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".