Effect of Transgenes on Global Gene Expression in Soybean Is within the Natural Range of Variation of Conventional Cultivars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current safety assessment for novel crops, including transgenic crops, uses a targeted approach, which relies on compositional analysis. The possibility that transgene expression could lead to unintended effects remains a debated issue. This study used transcriptome profiling as a nontargeted approach to evaluate overall molecular changes in transgenic soybean cultivars. Global gene expression was measured in the first trifoliate leaves of two transgenic and three conventional soybean cultivars using the soybean Affymetrix GeneChip. It was found that gene expression differs more between the two conventional cultivars than between the transgenics and their closest conventional cultivar investigated and that the magnitudes of differences measured in gene expression and genotype (determined by SSR analysis) do not necessarily correlate. A MySQL database coupled with a CGI Web interface was developed to store and present the results ( http://soyxpress.agrenv.mcgill.ca/). By integrating the microarray data with gene annotations and other soybean data, a comprehensive view of differences in gene expression is explored between cultivars.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".