Real‐time RT‐PCR analysis of loblolly pine (<i>Pinus taeda</i>) arabinogalactan‐protein and arabinogalactan‐protein‐like genes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arabinogalactan‐proteins (AGPs) are a class of large hydroxyproline‐rich glycoproteins (HGRPs) found in almost all plant species, and have been implicated in various plant growth and developmental processes including xylogenesis. A total of six AGP‐like genes or gene families have been cloned from differentiating pine xylem. In this study, seven different members of the ptaAGP5 gene family with between 54% and 73% similarity at the amino acid level were newly identified. Gene‐specific primers were designed and relative transcript levels of 11 loblolly pine AGP and AGP‐like genes were examined using real‐time reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) analysis. Expression was examined in different tissues: earlywood and latewood; xylem from two populations; drought‐stressed and well‐watered roots; compression, opposite and vertical wood; and in vitro cultured cells induced for lignification. The different loblolly pine AGP and AGP‐like genes showed varying expression patterns under the different conditions, suggesting different functions for each loblolly pine AGP. The results from this study also suggest that some AGPs are associated with xylogenesis, but not with lignification, and that different xylem AGPs probably have different functions.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".