MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1557771758 · doi:10.1071/fp08118

Synthesis of complementary RNA by RNA-dependent RNA polymerases in plant extracts is independent of an RNA primer

2008· article· en· W1557771758 on OpenAlexaff
Lei Wang, Neil A. Smith, Lan Zhang, Peter M. Waterhouse, Peter J. Unrau, Ming‐Bo Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueFunctional Plant Biology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRNAPrimer (cosmetics)BiologyRNA-dependent RNA polymerasePolymeraseRNA polymeraseRNA silencingMolecular biologyArabidopsis thalianaArabidopsisGeneticsRNA interferenceChemistryDNAGeneMutant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RDR) activities were readily detected in extracts from cauliflower and broccoli florets, Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh callus tissue and broccoli nuclei. The synthesis of complementary RNA (cRNA) was independent of a RNA primer, whether or not the primer contained a 3' terminal 2'-O-methyl group or was phosphorylated at the 5' terminus. cRNA synthesis in plant extracts was not affected by loss-of-function mutations in the DICER-LIKE (DCL) proteins DCL2, DCL3, and DCL4, indicating that RDRs function independently of these DCL proteins. A loss-of-function mutation in RDR1, RDR2 or RDR6 did not significantly reduce the amount of cRNA synthesis. This indicates that these RDRs did not account for the bulk RDR activities in plant extracts, and suggest that either the individual RDRs each contribute a fraction of polymerase activity or another RDR(s) is predominant in the plant extract.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFunctional Plant BiologySame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207