MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070794583 · doi:10.1155/2007/17542

Temporal Gene Expression Profiling of the Wheat Leaf Rust Pathosystem Using cDNA Microarray Reveals Differences in Compatible and Incompatible Defence Pathways

2007· article· en· W2070794583 on OpenAlexafffund
Bourlaye Fofana, Travis Banks, Brent McCallum, Stephen E. Strelkov, Sylvie Cloutier

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Plant Genomics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaManitoba Beekeepers' AssociationAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsPathosystemBiologyGenePhenylpropanoidComplementary DNAGene expressionGene expression profilingMicroarrayRust (programming language)PhenotypeMicroarray analysis techniquesGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we detail the construction of a custom cDNA spotted microarray containing 7728 wheat ESTs and the use of the array to identify host genes that are differentially expressed upon challenges with leaf rust fungal pathogens. Wheat cultivar RL6003 (Thatcher Lr1) was inoculated with Puccinia triticina virulence phenotypes BBB (incompatible) or TJB (7-2) (compatible) and sampled at four different time points (3, 6, 12, and 24 hours) after inoculation. Transcript expression levels relative to a mock treatment were measured. One hundred ninety two genes were found to have significantly altered expression between the compatible and incompatible reactions. Among those were genes involved in photosynthesis, the production of reactive oxygen species, ubiquitination, signal transduction, as well as in the shikimate/phenylpropanoid pathway. These data indicate that various metabolic pathways are affected, some of which might be used by RL6003 to mount a coordinated defense against an incompatible fungal pathogen.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations44
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Plant GenomicsSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207