MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973411748 · doi:10.1186/1753-6561-5-s7-o21

A roadmap of apical bud formation in white spruce identifies potential regulators of time to bud set

2011· article· en· W1973411748 on OpenAlexaff
Janice E. K. Cooke, Walid El Kayal, Betty Pelgas, Irina L. Zaharia, Suzanne R. Abrams, Nathalie Isabel

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Proceedings · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsPlant Biotechnology InstituteNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnnual growth cycle of grapevinesDormancyBudBiologyShootBotanyDesiccationHorticultureGermination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Bud development is an adaptation that temperate forest trees have acquired to survive inclement winter conditions and resume growth the following spring. Bud development is a complex physiological and developmental process comprising bud formation, cold and desiccation tolerance development, and dormancy acquisition [1]. Because bud formation is accompanied by growth cessation, the timing of bud formation represents a trade-off between acquisition of winter hardiness and duration of active growth [2]. This is particularly true for determinate species such as white spruce (Picea glauca [Moench] Voss), where preformed stem units contained within the apical bud constitute most of next season’s growth. Timing of bud set in white spruce shows genetic variation [3]. Our goal is to identify genes that exert genetic control over time to bud set in white spruce. As first steps towards that goal, we have conducted microarray gene expression profiling of shoot tips during the transition from active growth to dormancy in white spruce, and identified candidate regulators of bud formation by comparing these differentially expressed (DE) genes to results obtained from QTL analyses of time to bud set conducted using the same genes as molecular markers.

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 score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.228
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC ProceedingsSame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207