Genetic and gene expression analysis of <i>dm1,</i> a dwarf mutant from <i>Cucurbita maxima</i> Duch. ex Lam, based on the AFLP method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wang, R., Huang, H., Lin, Y., Chen, Q., Liang, Z. and Wu, T. 2014. Genetic and gene expression analysis of dm1, a dwarf mutant from Cucurbita maxima Duch. ex Lam, based on the AFLP method. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94: 293–302. dm1, a dwarf mutant from Cucurbita maxima (Duch. ex Lam) by natural mutation, showed distinct dwarf phenotypes such as shorter vines and fewer and shorter internodes. Genetic analysis indicated that the dm1 mutation was recessive, and the dwarfing character was controlled by a single locus. DNA-AFLP analysis showed that a fragment (MCAG/ETT) was linked with the dwarfing character of dm1 and that the fragment contained 152 base pairs (bp). It was investigated in F2 populations of dm1 and vine plants, and the genetic distance between the MCAG/ETT fragment and dwarf gene in dm1 was 11.2 cM, calculated by JoinMap 3.0 software. In addition, the result of cDNA-AFLP analysis showed that there were 52 differential transcript derived fragments (TDFs) found between dm1 and vine plants. Only four TDFs, A16T12, A16T9, A6T14 and A6T16, were expressed stably and specifically in dm1 plants in subsequent investigation. The four fragments share 71, 79, 87 and 79% nucleic acid sequence similarity with the complete coding sequence of Arabidopsis thaliana histidine kinase 3 (AHK3) mRNA, nucleic acid sequence of Vitis vinifera dihydroflavonol-4-reductase-like (DFRL), nucleic acid sequence of Glycine max histone-lysine N-methyltransferase ATX4-like and nucleic acid sequence of Arabidopsis thaliana histidinol dehydrogenase (HDH), respectively. Bioinformatics analysis indicated that AHK3, DFRL and HDH were respectively related to Cytokinin signaling, indole acetic acid signaling and Ni accumulation, which played important roles in plant growth, so the expression of the four TDFs may contribute to form dwarfism in dm1.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".