Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(28)
This result suggests that the difference of trichothecene genotypes (15-ADON and NIV) or SCAR types (SCAR type 4 and SCAR type 5) did not explain the unequal subpopulation sizes.
Isolates of F. asiaticum were the major causal agents (98%) in this investigated population and were comprised of SCAR type 5 (75%), SCAR type 4 (21%) and SCAR type 3 (2%).
Fusarium asiaticum 15-ADON SCAR type 4 isolates and F. asiaticum NIV SCAR type 5 isolates contributed 19 and 15% of the studied population, respectively.
To determine if virulence variation could account for the unequal subpopulation sizes of F. asiaticum 15-ADON SCAR type 5 isolates (60%), F. asiaticum 15-ADON SCAR type 4 isolates (19%) and F. asiaticum NIV SCAR type 5 isolates (15%), 10 isolates from each of the 3 subpopulations were randomly selected to compare their virulence on wheat heads.
SCAR type 2 was congruent with F. meridionale, but contained the same PCR band size as SCAR type 5 (Chandler et al. 2003).
Combined with the above results of isolate identity and SCAR types, one would conclude that the most predominate species and genotype is F. asiaticum 15-ADON SCAR type 5 (60%).
Similar(32)
As with SCAR types, trichothecene genotypes were more diverse in central Taiwan than northern Taiwan.
Type 2 and Type 5 are different in nucleotide sequences bThe SCAR types of two F. asiaticum isolates (Dacheng 1-2 anDachengng 2-1) were not available.
Table 3 The trichothecene genotypes of all species with reference to SCAR types Genotype No. of isolates F. asiaticum F. graminearum s.s.s
Primers Fg16F (5′-CTCCG-GATATGTTGCGTCAA-3′) and Fg16R (5′-GGTAGGTATCCGACATGGCAA-3′) were used as a pair of specific PCR primers to determine if a Fusarium isolate belongs to a FGSC isolate, and sizes of this PCR amplicons were used to assign the sequence characterized amplified region (SCAR) types to each isolate (Carter et al. 2000; Nicholson et al. 1998; Carter et al. 2002).
Both atrophic and hypertrophic scar types occur.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com