MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045817051 · doi:10.1534/genetics.110.116392

Natural Diversity in Flowering Responses of<i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i>Caused by Variation in a Tandem Gene Array

2010· article· en· W2045817051 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Marie Rosloski, Sathya Sheela Jali, Sureshkumar Balasubramanian, Detlef Weigel, Vojislava Grbić

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGeneticsLocus (genetics)GeneArabidopsisGene clusterArabidopsis thalianaGene duplicationAlleleFlowering Locus CStructural variationGenomeMutant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tandemly arrayed genes that belong to gene families characterize genomes of many organisms. Gene duplication and subsequent relaxation of selection can lead to the establishment of paralogous cluster members that may evolve along different trajectories. Here, we report on the structural variation in MADS AFFECTING FLOWERING 2 (MAF2) gene, one member of the tandemly duplicated cluster of MADS-box-containing transcription factors in Arabidopsis thaliana. The altered gene structure at the MAF2 locus is present as a moderate-frequency polymorphism in Arabidopsis and leads to the extensive diversity in transcript patterns due to alternative splicing. Rearrangements at the MAF2 locus are associated with an early flowering phenotype in BC(5) lines. The lack of suppression of flowering time in a MAF2-insertion line expressing the MAF2-specific artificial miRNA suggests that these MAF2 variants are behaving as loss-of-function alleles. The variation in gene architecture is also associated with segregation distortion, which may have facilitated the spread and the establishment of the corresponding alleles throughout the Eurasian range of the A. thaliana population.

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 score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations48
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207