Detection and seasonal expression pattern of a pathogenesis‐related protein (PR‐10) in Douglas‐fir (<i>Pseudotsuga menziesii</i>) tissues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previously, a PR‐10 protein Pin m III was described in western white pine. In this study, primers based on cDNA of Pin m III were utilized to obtain the genomic sequence of a Pin m III homologue –Pse m I – in Douglas‐fir. A comparative analysis of a deduced amino acid sequence of Pin m III and Pse m I genes indicated about 80% similarity between the two protein sequences, and a consensus 20 amino acid sequence located around the p‐loop sequence was used to synthesize a peptide of 20 amino acids. An antibody to this synthetic peptide was able to detect the Pse m I protein in Douglas‐fir. The anti‐Pse m I antibody was used in a western immunoblot to monitor seasonal variation of the Pse m I in Douglas‐fir needles and its level was shown to increase with overwintering of Douglas‐fir seedlings. However, unlike the Pin m III, there is no indication that the Pse m I is associated with frost hardiness. Analysis of infected Douglas‐fir roots showed a possible trend to up‐regulation of Pse m I by pathogens such as the laminated root rot fungus, Phellinus weirii. The expression of Pse m I protein in Douglas‐fir seedlings is very low compared to the expression of Pin m III protein in western white pine seedlings. In addition, a light‐harvesting complex I protein, PSI‐F, was identified in Douglas‐fir by N‐terminal amino acid sequencing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".