MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060242724 · doi:10.1139/g10-090

Gene expression patterns are correlated with genomic and genic structure in soybean

2011· article· en· W2060242724 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jenna Lynn Woody, Andrew Severin, Yung‐Tsi Bolon, Bindu Joseph, Brian W. Diers, Andrew Farmer, Nathan T. Weeks, Gary J. Muehlbauer, Rex T. Nelson, David Grant, James E. Specht, Michelle A. Graham, Steven B. Cannon, Gregory D. May, Carroll P. Vance, Randy C. Shoemaker

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyIntronExonGeneGeneticsIntergenic regionGene expressionGene expression profilingGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies have indicated that exon and intron size and intergenic distance are correlated with gene expression levels and expression breadth. Previous reports on these correlations in plants and animals have been conflicting. In this study, next-generation sequence data, which has been shown to be more sensitive than previous expression profiling technologies, were generated and analyzed from 14 tissues. Our results revealed a novel dichotomy. At the low expression level, an increase in expression breadth correlated with an increase in transcript size because of an increase in the number of exons and introns. No significant changes in intron or exon sizes were noted. Conversely, genes expressed at the intermediate to high expression levels displayed a decrease in transcript size as their expression breadth increased. This was due to smaller exons, with no significant change in the number of exons. Taking advantage of the known gene space of soybean, we evaluated the positioning of genes and found significant clustering of similarly expressed genes. Identifying the correlations between the physical parameters of individual genes could lead to uncovering the role of regulation owing to nucleotide composition, which might have potential impacts in discerning the role of the noncoding regions.

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 score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations39
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207