Molecular cloning and gene transcription analyses of barwin‐type PR‐4 genes from <i>Phellinus sulphurascens</i>‐infected Douglas‐fir seedlings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary To better understand the molecular basis of interactions between the laminated root rot pathogen Phellinus sulphurascens Pilát and its principal host, Douglas‐fir [DF; Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco.], we constructed a cDNA library from roots of P. sulphurascens‐infected DF seedlings. From a total of 3600 random cDNA clones, we identified 56 clones that matched with barley wound induced (barwin)‐type pathogenesis‐related 4 (PR4) genes that have been reported in planta. At least three PR4 genes comprising 426‐ to 444‐bp full‐length open reading frames, Pm PR4a1, Pm PR4a2, and Pm PR4b1, were identified from DF seedlings. Deduced amino acid sequences for the proteins encoded by these genes confirmed that two of them are acidic (Mr, 12.8–13.0 kDa; pI, 4.12–4.53) and one is a basic (Mr, 13.0 kDa; pI, 8.53) PR4 protein. Quantitative reverse transcriptase‐PCR analyses of these transcripts showed significantly higher transcription in P. sulphurascens‐infected vs. control DF tissues. Upregulation of the transcripts in roots of a P. sulphurascens‐resistant DF family was significant. Our results suggest that DF PR4 genes play an important role in the defence mechanism of DF against P. sulphurascens infection and thus could be useful in DF breeding.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".