MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011880840 · doi:10.4161/psb.5.8.12231

Comparisons of early transcriptome responses to low-oxygen environments in three dicotyledonous plant species

2010· article· en· W2011880840 on OpenAlexaff
Jed A. Christianson, Danny Llewellyn, Elizabeth S. Dennis, Iain W. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Signaling & Behavior · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant responses to water stress
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersCotton Research and Development CorporationCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
KeywordsTranscriptomeBiologyArabidopsisHypoxia (environmental)RhizosphereWaterlogging (archaeology)BotanyGossypiumGenePlant speciesOxygenGeneticsEcologyGene expressionChemistryMutant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Waterlogging is a serious impediment to crop productivity worldwide which acts to reduce oxygen levels in the rhizosphere due to the low diffusion rate of molecular oxygen in water. Plants respond to low oxygen through rapid and specific changes at both the transcriptional and translational levels. Transcriptional changes to low-oxygen (hypoxia) stress have been studied in a number of plant species using whole genome microarrays. Using transcriptome data from root tissue from early time points (4-5 h) from cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), Arabidopsis and gray poplar (Populus x canescens), we have identified a core set of orthologous genes that responded to hypoxia in similar ways between species, and others that showed species specific responses . Responses to hypoxia were most similar between Arabidopsis and cotton, while the waterlogging tolerant poplar species exhibited some significant differences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations54
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant Signaling & BehaviorSame topicPlant responses to water stressFrench-language works237,207