Comparative expression of Cbf genes in the Triticeae under different acclimation induction temperatures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In plants, the C-repeat binding factors (Cbfs) are believed to regulate low-temperature (LT) tolerance. However, most functional studies of Cbfs have focused on characterizing expression after an LT shock and have not quantified differences associated with variable temperature induction or the rate of response to LT treatment. In the Triticeae, rye (Secale cereale L.) is one of the most LT-tolerant species, and is an excellent model to study and compare Cbf LT induction and expression profiles. Here, we report the isolation of rye Cbf genes (ScCbfs) and compare their expression levels in spring- and winter-habit rye cultivars and their orthologs in two winter-habit wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) cultivars. Eleven ScCbfs were isolated spanning all four major phylogenetic groups. Nine of the ScCbfs mapped to 5RL and one to chromosome 2R. Cbf expression levels were variable, with stronger expression in winter- versus spring-habit rye cultivars but no clear relationship with cultivar differences in LT, down-stream cold-regulated gene expression and Cbf expression were detected. Some Cbfs were expressed only at warmer acclimation temperatures in all three species and their expression was repressed at the end of an 8-h dark period at warmer temperatures, which may reflect a temperature-dependent, light-regulated diurnal response. Our work indicates that Cbf expression is regulated by complex genotype by time by induction-temperature interactions, emphasizing that sample timing, induction-temperature and light-related factors must receive greater consideration in future studies involving functional characterization of LT-induced genes in cereals.
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 | 0.001 | 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".