MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Strategies to mitigate transgene–promoter interactions

2009· article· en· W2002171861 on OpenAlexaff
Loreta Gudynaite‐Savitch, Douglas A. Johnson, Brian Miki

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Biotechnology Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant tissue culture and regeneration
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaIogen CorporationUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPromoterEnhancerTransgeneCauliflower mosaic virusSelectable markerDNAGeneticsGeneComputational biologyCell biologyGene expressionGenetically modified crops

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The expression pattern of tissue-specific promoters in transgenes can be influenced by promoter/enhancer elements employed for the expression of selectable marker genes or elements found in DNA flanking the insertion site. We have developed an analytical system in Arabidopsis thaliana to investigate strategies useful in blocking or reducing nonspecific interactions. These experiments confirm that the DNA configuration and the insertion of spacer DNA aid in the appropriate expression of tissue-specific promoters. It is also demonstrated that the novel tobacco cryptic promoter (tCUP), when used to replace the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter/enhancer, does not show nonspecific interactions. Furthermore, it is shown that insulators isolated from yeast and animals may have potential application in plants. Our results may allow the design of strategies that, individually or in combination, can be used to minimize nonspecific interactions and to design vectors for individual tissue-specific promoters.

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 score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations58
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant Biotechnology JournalSame topicPlant tissue culture and regenerationFrench-language works237,207