MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012468286 · doi:10.1186/1756-0500-7-442

Rehydration conditions for isolation of high quality RNA from the lichen Lobaria pulmonaria

2014· article· en· W2012468286 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer Doering, Vivian Miao, Michele D. Piercey‐Normore

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Research Notes · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLichen and fungal ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsThallusLichenRNABiologyDesiccationBotanyChemistryBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The poikilohydric nature of lichens enables them to survive repeated episodes of desiccation by utilizing water when it becomes available. During rehydration, RNA-degrading endonucleases may be released, reducing RNA quantity and quality. Re-generation of a steady-state condition where RNA quantity and quality no longer fluctuate establishes a framework for development of new hypotheses for future investigations. Using Lobaria pulmonaria as a model species, the objective of this study was to compare the effect of different rehydration conditions on the quantity and quality of RNA from the rehydrated thallus. FINDINGS: Spectrophotometric measurements of total RNA and cDNA were performed for samples prepared from dry lichen or lichen after rehydration (0.5 h, 1 h, 2 h, 4 h or 24 h), with limited light and dark conditions, and at three temperatures (15°C, 20°C or 32°C) for some of these conditions. The results showed that rehydration of the thallus for 4 h at 20°C in light yielded the highest concentration and quality of RNA. A higher RNA concentration was obtained in light than in dark conditions, but the RNA quality was unaffected. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that allowance of 4 h for thallus rehydration should be adequate to ensure complete recovery of transcription. After 4 h at 20°C further studies can be carried out on the RNA in this model species.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Research NotesSame topicLichen and fungal ecologyFrench-language works237,207