MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009901383 · doi:10.1094/phyto-96-0164

Cloning and Characterization of a Putative Antifungal Peptide Gene (<i>Pm-AMP1</i>) in <i>Pinus monticola</i>

2006· article· en· W2009901383 on OpenAlexfundno aff
A.K.M. Ekramoddoullah, Jun‐Jun Liu, Arezoo Rezaie Nezhad Zamani

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytopathology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Forest Service
KeywordsBiologyCankerRust (programming language)Bark (sound)GeneComplementary DNABotanyCloning (programming)cDNA libraryGeneticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We have been working on proteins that are involved in the defense response of western white pine (WWP) (Pinus monitcola) to the blister rust fungus Cronartium ribicola. Our objective was to identify candidate genes that could be used for improving resistance of WWP to this rust pathogen. During proteomic analysis of bark proteins extracted from WWP trees exhibiting slow-canker-growth (SCG) resistance, a 10.6-kDa peptide, termed Pm-AMP1, was found to be enriched at the receding canker margin. The cDNA encoding this peptide was cloned and characterized. A BLASTX search revealed that the Pm-AMP1 encoded by its cDNA has a 50% homology with MiAMP1, a broad-spectrum antifungal protein isolated from Macadamia integrifolia. Based on the deduced amino acid sequence, an antibody was produced against the Pm-AMP1. Immunochemical quantification of the Pm-AMP1 in bark samples of susceptible WWP trees revealed this protein to be barely detectable in the cankered tissues, but occurring in higher concentrations in healthy tissues away from canker margins. Foliage of SCG-resistant trees contained higher concentrations of the Pm-AMP1 than foliage from susceptible cankered trees. Both wounding and methyl jasmonate treatment of WWP needles induced the expression of this protein, further supporting its putative role as a defense response protein.

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 score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations25
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytopathologySame topicPlant-Microbe Interactions and ImmunityFrench-language works237,207