MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Characterization and expression analysis of WOX2 homeodomain transcription factor in Aegilops tauschii

2015· article· en· W2063350087 on OpenAlexaff
Shan Zhao, Qiantao Jiang, Jian Ma, Jirui Wang, Yaxi Liu, Guoyue Chen, Pengfei Qi, Zhien Pu, Zhen‐Xiang Lu, Youliang Zheng, Yuming Wei

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics and Molecular Biology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBiologyAegilops tauschiiHomeoboxGeneticsOpen reading frameComplementary DNAGeneSequence analysisTranscription factorCDX2Peptide sequenceGenomeMolecular biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The WUSCHEL (WUS)-related homeobox (WOX) gene family coordinates transcription during the early phases of embryogenesis. In this study, a putative WOX2 homolog was isolated and characterized from Aegilops tauschii, the donor of D genome of Triticum aestivum. The sequence consisted of 2045 bp, and contained an open reading frame (ORF), encoded 322 amino acids. The predicted protein sequence contained a highly conserved homeodomain and the WUS-box domain, which is present in some members of the WOX protein family. The full-length ORF was subcloned into prokaryotic expression vector pET-30a, and an approximately 34-kDa protein was expressed in Escherichia coli BL21 (DE3) cells with IPTG induction. The molecular mass of the expressed protein was identical to that predicted by the cDNA sequence. Phylogenetic analysis suggested that Ae. tauschii WOX2 is closely related to the rice and maize orthologs. Quantitative PCR analysis showed that WOX2 from Ae. tauschii was primarily expressed in the seeds; transcription increased during seed development and declined after the embryos matured, suggesting that WOX2 is associated with embryo development in Ae. tauschii.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenetics and Molecular BiologySame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207