Diverse chitinases are invoked during the activity-dormancy transition in spruce
Bibliographic record
Abstract
North temperate tree species such as white spruce ( Picea glauca [Moench] Voss) have evolved strategies to protect themselves against abiotic and biotic stresses that trees encounter during the inclement winter months. Chitinases not only play well-documented roles in plant defense but also function during physiological and developmental preparations for overwintering, including growth cessation, cold and desiccation acclimation, and dormancy acquisition. Phylogenetic analysis of 31 white spruce and 52 Norway spruce chitinases identified genes falling into each of the five clusters, which sometimes—but not always—separated the different biochemical classes of chitinases. Digital expression profiling of white spruce and Norway spruce chitinases across multiple conditions revealed a range of spatiotemporal expression patterns. Transcript abundance profiling in buds, needles, stems, and roots by quantitative RT-PCR suggested roles for eight white spruce chitinases during the growth-to-dormancy transition. In silico analyses of these eight sequences suggested that two cluster 2/class I chitinases function as chitinolytic enzymes in the tree’s constitutive defense arsenal during the winter months. A cluster 2/class I, cluster 2/class II, and cluster 1/class IV chitinase each exhibit hallmarks of antifreeze proteins. Additionally, two cluster 2/class I chitinases and a cluster 1/class IV chitinase may serve as vegetative storage proteins. One cluster 3/class II chitinase exhibited attributes suggesting that it is a chitinase-like gene functioning in cell wall synthesis. Taken together, our results imply that dormancy-associated chitinases act in concert to (1) confer protection against freezing injury, pests, and pathogens, (2) store nitrogen, and (3) promote cell maturation that precedes growth cessation.
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) | 0.000 | 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".