MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969382808 · doi:10.1021/jf102635f

Enhanced Seed Carotenoid Levels and Branching in Transgenic <i>Brassica napus</i> Expressing the <i>Arabidopsis</i> <i>miR156b</i> Gene

2010· article· en· W1969382808 on OpenAlexaff
Shu Wei, Bianyun Yu, Margaret Y. Gruber, George G. Khachatourians, Dwayne D. Hegedus, Abdelali Hannoufa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPhotosynthetic Processes and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanolaBiologyBrassicaCarotenoidArabidopsisCauliflower mosaic virusTransgeneGenetically modified cropsShootBotanyGeneHorticultureMutantGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Arabidopsis AtmiR156b gene was expressed in Brassica napus under the control of the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter and the seed-specific napin promoter. Seed carotenoid levels, branching habit, seed yield, and seed weight were examined in the transgenic B. napus. Our results demonstrated that constitutive expression of AtmiR156b in B. napus resulted in enhanced levels of seed lutein and beta-carotene and a 2-fold increase in the number of flowering shoots, whereas AtmiR156b driven by the napin promoter did not affect these traits. This suggested that enhancement of seed quality and shoot branching are both related to AtmiR156b expression patterns. Seed yield and seed weight varied significantly within the transgenic lines. However, one line was found to have enhanced seed carotenoid levels but unchanged seed weight or yield. These data suggest that AtmiR156b gene expression could be applied in plant breeding initiatives for enhancing carotenoid production in canola and other crop species.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations60
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicPhotosynthetic Processes and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207