MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The radish <i>Rfo</i> restorer gene of Ogura cytoplasmic male sterility encodes a protein with multiple pentatricopeptide repeats

2003· article· en· W1821823015 on OpenAlexafffund
Gregory G. Brown, Nataša Formanová, Hua Jin, Richard Wargachuk, Charles Dendy, Prashant P. Patil, Martin Laforest, Jinfa Zhang, Wing‐Yee Cheung, Benoit Landry

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Plant Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPhotosynthetic Processes and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCégep Saint-Jean-sur-RichelieuMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPentatricopeptide repeatBiologyGeneticsArabidopsisGeneCytoplasmic male sterilitySyntenyMutantChromosome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A single radish nuclear gene, Rfo, restores Ogura (ogu) cytoplasmic male sterility (CMS) in Brassica napus. A map-based cloning approach relying on synteny between radish and Arabidopsis was used to clone Rfo. A radish gene encoding a 687-amino-acid protein with a predicted mitochondrial targeting pre-sequence was found to confer male fertility upon transformation into ogu CMS B. napus. This gene, like the recently described Petunia Rf gene, codes for a pentatricopeptide repeat (PPR)-containing protein with multiple, in this case 16, PPR domains. Two similar genes that do not appear to function as Rfo flank this gene. Comparison of the Rfo region with the syntenic Arabidopsis region indicates that a PPR gene is not present at the Rfo-equivalent site in Arabidopsis, although a smaller and related PPR gene is found about 40 kb from this site. The implications of these findings for the evolution of restorer genes and other PPR encoding genes are discussed.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations435
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Plant JournalSame topicPhotosynthetic Processes and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207