ArticleScientific reports2025
A new molecular seed assay to predict Ustilago nuda field infection levels.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Seed health tests are performed to prevent sowing untreated seeds with problematic pathogen levels. The detection of internal seedborne pathogens like Ustilago nuda, causing loose smut in barley (Hordeum vulgare), is challenging because symptoms only appear when teliospores replace barley inflorescences and smutted ears develop. Currently, U. nuda seed infection levels are determined from the visual inspections of extracted embryos or fields of plants used for seed production, both of which are laborious and can be unreliable. To improve U. nuda detection, we developed a multiplex qPCR method targeting U. nuda and H. vulgare DNA. Naturally infected seed lots were tested using this qPCR method and the visual analysis of embryos. We grew the same seed lots in the field over two seasons and used the observed smutted ears as the reference infection level. The qPCR results, U. nuda DNA normalized to H. vulgare DNA, better correlated with observed field infections than the number of infected embryos. Our qPCR method more accurately distinguished seed lots with infections above and below the field tolerance threshold. It offers a reliable alternative to the visual analysis of extracted embryos. The integration of our qPCR method with field observations can enhance U. nuda management and reduce unnecessary prophylactic seed treatments, thereby bolstering integrated pest management strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.