Comparative interrogation of the developing xylem transcriptomes of two wood‐forming species: <i><scp>P</scp>opulus trichocarpa</i> and <i><scp>E</scp>ucalyptus grandis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wood formation is a complex developmental process governed by genetic and environmental stimuli. Populus and Eucalyptus are fast-growing, high-yielding tree genera that represent ecologically and economically important species suitable for generating significant lignocellulosic biomass. Comparative analysis of the developing xylem and leaf transcriptomes of Populus trichocarpa and Eucalyptus grandis together with phylogenetic analyses identified clusters of homologous genes preferentially expressed during xylem formation in both species. A conserved set of 336 single gene pairs showed highly similar xylem preferential expression patterns, as well as evidence of high functional constraint. Individual members of multi-gene orthologous clusters known to be involved in secondary cell wall biosynthesis also showed conserved xylem expression profiles. However, species-specific expression as well as opposite (xylem versus leaf) expression patterns observed for a subset of genes suggest subtle differences in the transcriptional regulation important for xylem development in each species. Using sequence similarity and gene expression status, we identified functional homologs likely to be involved in xylem developmental and biosynthetic processes in Populus and Eucalyptus. Our study suggests that, while genes involved in secondary cell wall biosynthesis show high levels of gene expression conservation, differential regulation of some xylem development genes may give rise to unique xylem properties.
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".