Differential contributions to the transcriptome of duplicated genes in response to abiotic stresses in natural and synthetic polyploids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polyploidy has occurred throughout plant evolution and can result in considerable changes to gene expression when it takes place and over evolutionary time. Little is known about the effects of abiotic stress conditions on duplicate gene expression patterns in polyploid plants. We examined the expression patterns of 60 duplicated genes in leaves, roots and cotyledons of allotetraploid Gossypium hirsutum in response to five abiotic stress treatments (heat, cold, drought, high salt and water submersion) using single-strand conformation polymorphism assays, and 20 genes in a synthetic allotetraploid. Over 70% of the genes showed stress-induced changes in the relative expression levels of the duplicates under one or more stress treatments with frequent variability among treatments. Twelve pairs showed opposite changes in expression levels in response to different abiotic stress treatments. Stress-induced expression changes occurred in the synthetic allopolyploid, but there was little correspondence in patterns between the natural and synthetic polyploids. Our results indicate that abiotic stress conditions can have considerable effects on duplicate gene expression in a polyploid, with the effects varying by gene, stress and organ type. Differential expression in response to environmental stresses may be a factor in the preservation of some duplicated genes in polyploids.
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) | 0.000 | 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".