Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The perennial plant model species Populus trichocarpa has received considerable attention in the last 5 yr because of its potential use as a bioenergy crop. The completion of its genome sequence revealed extensive homologies with the herbaceous annual species Arabidopsis thaliana . This review highlights the similarities and differences at the qualitative defence response components level, notably in putative NBS‐LRR protein content and downstream defence regulators. With almost a twofold NBS‐LRR gene complement compared with A. thaliana , P. trichocarpa also encodes some putative R‐proteins with unusual architectures and possible DNA‐binding capacity. P. trichocarpa also possesses all the known main components characteristic of TIR‐NB‐LRR and CC‐NB‐LRR signalling. However, very little has been done with regard to the components involved in the poplar qualitative response to pathogens. In addition, the relationship between plant‐biotroph perception/signalling and the role of salicylic acid, an important defence compound, remains uncertain. This review aims to identify the genomic components present in poplar that could potentially participate in the qualitative response and highlights where efforts should be devoted to obtain a better understanding of the poplar qualitative defence response. Contents Summary 678 I. Introduction 679 II. R ‐gene‐mediated response in plants: an introductory overview 679 III. R‐protein pathways in poplar 680 IV. What is the role of BED‐NB‐LRR? 681 V. Downstream of R‐proteins 683 VI. The role of salicylic acid in biotrophic interaction 683 VII. Concluding remarks 684 References 685
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".