MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

LORE1, an active low‐copy‐number TY3‐<i>gypsy</i> retrotransposon family in the model legume <i>Lotus japonicus</i>

2005· article· en· W1951064865 on OpenAlexaff
Lene H. Madsen, Eigo Fukai, Simona Radutoiu, Christopher K. Yost, Niels Sandal, Leif Schauser, Jens Stougaard

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Plant Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsRetrotransposonBiologyGeneticsLong terminal repeatLotusTransposable elementLotus japonicusMutantGeneMutagenesisMendelian inheritanceGenomeBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have identified a low-copy-number retrotransposon family present in nine to 10 copies in the Lotus japonicus model legume genome, and characterized its activity. LORE1 (Lotus retrotransposon 1) belongs to the Ty3-gypsy group of elements, and is a long terminal repeat (LTR) retrotransposon. Genetic mapping located LORE1 elements in gene-rich regions of Lotus chromosomes, and analysis of native as well as new insertion sites revealed integration outside the highly repetitive sequences of centromeres and telomeres. Sequencing of individual LORE1 family members identified several intact elements, and analysis of new insertions showed that at least one member is active and reinserts into functional genes, creating gene-disruption mutations. Southern blot analysis and SSAP on a selection of symbiotic mutants revealed up to 12 new insertion sites in individual mutant lines and a Mendelian segregation of new inserts. Expression analysis showed that LORE1 elements are transcribed in all organs analysed and, in contrast to other active retrotransposons, LORE1 appears not to be transcriptionally upregulated during in vitro tissue culture. Activity of LORE1 in callus and whole plants suggests that a simple insertion mutagenesis based on endogenous LORE1 elements can be established for Lotus.

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 score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations59
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Plant JournalSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207