MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040353873 · doi:10.1534/g3.114.011916

Genetic Control of Heterochrony in <i>Eucalyptus globulus</i>

2014· article· en· W2040353873 on OpenAlexaff
Corey J. Hudson, Jules S. Freeman, Rebecca C. Jones, BM Potts, Melissa M. L. Wong, James L. Weller, Valérie Hecht, R. Scott Poethig, René E. Vaillancourt

Bibliographic record

VenueG3 Genes Genomes Genetics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesAustralian Research CouncilNorske Skog
KeywordsHeterochronyEucalyptus globulusBiologyEvolutionary biologyMicroevolutionOntogenyPopulationEucalyptusZoologyEcologyGeneticsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A change in the timing or rate of developmental events throughout ontogeny is referred to as heterochrony, and it is a major evolutionary process in plants and animals. We investigated the genetic basis for natural variation in the timing of vegetative phase change in the tree Eucalyptus globulus, which undergoes a dramatic change in vegetative morphology during the juvenile-to-adult transition. Quantitative trait loci analysis in an outcross F2 family derived from crosses between individuals from a coastal population of E. globulus with precocious vegetative phase change and individuals from populations in which vegetative phase change occurs several years later implicated the microRNA EglMIR156.5 as a potential contributor to this heterochronic difference. Additional evidence for the involvement of EglMIR156.5 was provided by its differential expression in trees with early and late phase change. Our findings suggest that changes in the expression of miR156 underlie natural variation in vegetative phase change in E. globulus, and may also explain interspecific differences in the timing of this developmental transition.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations42
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueG3 Genes Genomes GeneticsSame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207