MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079720731 · doi:10.1139/b08-010

Genetic and morphological analysis of floral homeotic mutants<i>tepal-like bract</i>and<i>fagopyrum apetala</i>of<i>Fagopyrum esculentum</i>

2008· article· en· W2079720731 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maria D. Logacheva, И. Н. Фесенко, А Н Фесенко, Aleksey A. Penin

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyFagopyrumPerianthHomeotic geneTepalBractBotanyAgamousAntirrhinum majusMutantGeneticsInflorescenceGeneStamen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The studies on floral homeotic mutants of the model plant species Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. and Antirrhinum majus L. have clarified many important aspects of the genetic control of flower development. However, the details of this process can vary in species representing different lineages of flowering plants. The studies on floral homeotic mutants of nonmodel plant species may significantly improve the understanding of the mechanisms of morphological evolution of flowers. We report here the results of the genetic and morphological analysis of two floral homeotic mutants of common buckwheat ( Fagopyrum esculentum Moench.). The mutant, tepal-like bract (tlb), is characterized by the transformation of bracts into petaloid organs, whereas fagopyrum apetala (fap), has a carpelloid perianth. Both mutant phenotypes are caused by a single recessive nuclear mutation. The double mutant fap tlb combines the features of tlb and fap. Our results show that single gene mutations are sufficient to convert the buckwheat bract into a tepal and to confer carpel identity on first whorl organs. These results are consistent with the premise that variations on the ABC model can be used to explain a wide range of floral architectures.

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 score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207