Development of a method for mRNA differential display in filamentous fungi: comparison of mRNA differential display reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and cDNA amplified fragment length polymorphism in <i>Leptosphaeria maculans</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We modified a technique, cDNA-AFLP, for identifying differentially expressed genes in plants to work in the filamentous fungus Leptosphaeria maculans (Desmaz.) Ces. & De Not. The cDNA fragments generated by our method ranged in size from approximately 100 to 400 bps. On average, twice as many cDNA fragments were amplified per primer set with cDNA amplified fragment length polymorphism in comparison with mRNA differential display reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. The DNA fragments of interest were excised from gels and analyzed by single-stranded conformation polymorphism to eliminate nondifferentially expressed cDNA contamination. The method was used to examine gene expression differences between cultures grown in the presence or absence of an analog of the Brassica phytoalexin brassinin. Eleven of the fourteen fragments examined were determined by reverse Northern blot to be differentially expressed. In examining gene expression differences between young cultures not producing sirodesmins and older cultures that were producing these phytotoxins, we found 17 of 25 fragments were differentially expressed. Northern blots with these fragments confirmed the results.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".