MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1783382419 · doi:10.1139/gen-2012-0146

Comprehensive analysis of the transcription of starch synthesis genes and the transcription factor RSR1 in wheat (<i>Triticum aestivum</i>) endosperm

2012· article· en· W1783382419 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Guozhang Kang, Wei Xu, Guoqin Liu, Xiaoqi Peng, Tiancai Guo

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndospermBiologyGeneStarchGene expressionTranscription factorStarch synthaseComplementary DNATranscription (linguistics)GeneticsBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cDNA sequences of 26 starch synthesis genes were identified in common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), and their transcript levels were measured using quantitative real-time RT-PCR to assess the function of individual genes and the regulatory mechanism in wheat endosperm. The expression patterns of 26 genes in wheat endosperm were classified into three groups. The genes in group 1 were richly expressed in the early stage of grain development and may be involved in the construction of fundamental cell machinery, synthesis of glucan primers, and initiation of starch granules. The genes in group 2 were highly expressed during the middle and late stages of grain development, and their expression profiles were similar to the accumulation rate of endosperm starch; these genes are presumed to play a crucial role in starch production. The genes in group 3 were scantily expressed throughout the grain development period and might be associated with transitory starch synthesis. Transcripts of the negative transcription factor TaRSR1 were high at the early and late stages of grain development but low during the middle stage. The expression pattern of TaRSR1 was almost opposite to those of the group 2 starch synthesis genes, indicating that TaRSR1 might negatively regulate the expression of many endosperm starch synthesis genes during grain development.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations45
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207