MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1945725813 · doi:10.1109/cibcb.2015.7300304

Digitization of trait representation in microarray data analysis of wheat infected by fusarium graminearum

2015· article· en· W1945725813 on OpenAlexaff
Youlian Pan, Thérèse Ouellet, Sieu Phan, Alain Tchagang, François Fauteux, Dan Tulpan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Canadian institutionsCommunications Research Centre Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFusariumBiologyGeneQuantitative trait locusMicroarrayDNA microarrayGeneticsMicroarray analysis techniquesTraitGene expressionComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fusarium head blight (FHB) limits wheat yield and compromises grain quality. We investigated differentially expressed genes after FHB challenge. FHB-susceptible and -resistant common wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivars were challenged with the toxigenic fungus Fusarium graminearum and gene expression was analyzed using 61K Affymetrix wheat microarrays. We digitized trait specificity in the susceptible and resistant lines with and without the infection in order to facilitate subsequent data mining. We discovered various patterns of differential gene expression between susceptible and resistant lines in response to the infection. We performed association network analysis among genes in clusters significantly correlated with one or more quantitative trait loci known to contribute to Fusarium resistance. We found 11 interconnected hub genes responsive to FHB infection and significantly correlated with wheat resistance to FHB, among which two are predicted to encode a polygalacturonase-inhibiting protein (PGIP1).

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)0.001
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food→French-language works237,207→