Dataset Information

Experimental comparison of two methods to study barley responses to partial submergence.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Crop yield is dependent on climate conditions, which are becoming both more variable and extreme in some areas of the world as a consequence of global climate change. Increased precipitation and flooding events are the cause of important yield losses due to waterlogging or (partial) submergence of crops in the field. Our ability to screen efficiently and quickly for varieties that have increased tolerance to waterlogging or (partial) submergence is important. Barley, a staple crop worldwide, is particularly sensitive to waterlogging. Screening for waterlogging tolerant barley varieties has been ongoing for many years, but methods used to screen vary greatly, from the type of soil used to the time at which the treatment is applied. This variation makes it difficult to cross-compare results.

Results

Here, we have devised a scoring system to assess barley tolerance to waterlogging and compare two different methods when partial submergence is applied with either water or a starch solution at an early developmental stage, which is particularly sensitive to waterlogging or partial submergence. The use of a starch solution has been previously shown to result in more reducing soil conditions and has been used to screen for waterlogging tolerance.

Conclusions

Our results show that the two methods provide similar results to qualitatively rank varieties as tolerant or sensitive, while also affecting plants differently, in that application of a starch solution results in stronger and earlier symptoms than applying partial submergence with water.

SUBMITTER: Miricescu A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8045378 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn some settings, research methods to determine influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) may not be appropriate because of cost, time constraints, or other factors. Administrative database analysis of viral testing results and vaccination history may be a viable alternative. This study compared VE estimates from outpatient research and administrative databases.MethodsUsing the test-negative, case-control design, data for 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 influenza seasons were collected using: 1) consent, specimen collection, RT-PCR testing and vaccine verification using multiple methods; and 2) an administrative database of outpatients with a clinical respiratory viral panel combined with electronic immunization records. Odds ratios for likelihood of influenza infection by vaccination status were calculated using multivariable logistic regression. VE = (1 - aOR) × 100.ResultsResearch participants were significantly younger (P < 0.001), more often white (69% vs. 59%; P < 0.001) than non-white and less frequently enrolled through the emergency department (35% vs. 72%; P < 0.001) than administrative database participants. VE was significant against all influenza and influenza A in each season and both seasons combined (37-49%). Point estimate differences between methods were evident, with higher VE in the research database, but insignificant due to low sample sizes. When enrollment sites were separately analyzed, there were significant differences in VE estimates for all influenza (66% research vs. 46% administrative P < 0.001) and influenza A (67% research vs. 49% administrative; P < 0.001) in the emergency department.ConclusionsThe selection of the appropriate method for determining influenza vaccine effectiveness depends on many factors, including sample size, subgroups of interest, etc., suggesting that research estimates may be more generalizable. Other advantages of research databases for VE estimates include lack of clinician-related selection bias for testing and less misclassification of vaccination status. The advantages of the administrative databases are potentially shorter time to VE results and lower cost.

Project description:We compared two consensus primer PCR human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping methods for the detection of individual HPV genotypes and carcinogenic HPV genotypes as a group, using a stratified sample of enrollment cervical specimens from sexually active women participating in the NCI/Costa Rica HPV16/18 Vaccine Efficacy Trial. For the SPF(10) method, DNA was extracted from 0.1% of the cervical specimen by using a MagNA Pure LC instrument, a 65-bp region of the HPV L1 gene was targeted for PCR amplification by using SPF(10) primers, and 25 genotypes were detected by reverse-line blot hybridization of the amplicons. For the Linear Array (LA) method, DNA was extracted from 0.5% of the cervical specimen by using an MDx robot, a 450-bp region of the HPV L1 gene was targeted for PCR amplification by using PGMY09/11 L1 primers, and 37 genotypes were detected by reverse-line blot hybridization of the amplicons. Specimens (n = 1,427) for testing by the LA method were randomly selected from strata defined on the basis of enrollment test results from the SPF(10) method, cytology, and Hybrid Capture 2. LA results were extrapolated to the trial cohort (n = 5,659). The LA and SPF(10) methods detected 21 genotypes in common; HPV16, -18, -31, -33, -35, -39, -45, -51, -52, -56, -58, -59, -66, -68, and -73 were considered the carcinogenic HPV genotypes. There was no difference in the overall results for grouped detection of carcinogenic HPV by the SPF(10) and LA methods (35.3% versus 35.9%, respectively; P = 0.5), with a 91.8% overall agreement and a kappa value of 0.82. In comparisons of individual HPV genotypes, the LA method detected significantly more HPV16, HPV18, HPV39, HPV58, HPV59, HPV66, and HPV68/73 and less HPV31 and HPV52 than the SPF(10) method; inclusion of genotype-specific testing for HPV16 and HPV18 for those specimens testing positive for HPV by the SPF(10) method but for which no individual HPV genotype was detected abrogated any differences between the LA and SPF(10) methods. The LA method detected more carcinogenic-HPV-genotype infections per specimen than the SPF(10) method (P < 0.001). In conclusion, the LA method and the SPF(10) method with HPV16 and HPV18 genotype-specific detection among ungenotyped HPV-positive specimens were comparable for detection of HPV16 and HPV18, the two HPV genotypes targeted by current prophylactic HPV vaccines. Both approaches are suitable for monitoring the impact of HPV16/18 vaccines in clinical trials.