Identification of conserved core xylem gene sets: conifer cDNA microarray development, transcript profiling and computational analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One approach for investigating the molecular basis of wood formation is to integrate microarray profiling data sets and sequence analyses, comparing tree species with model plants such as Arabidopsis. Conifers may be included in comparative studies thanks to large-scale expressed sequence tag (EST) analyses, which enable the development of cDNA microarrays with very significant genome coverage. A microarray of 10,400 low-redundancy sequences was designed starting from white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench.) Voss) cDNAs. Computational procedures that were developed to ensure broad transcriptome coverage and efficient PCR amplification were used to select cDNA clones, which were re-sequenced in the microarray manufacture process. White spruce transcript profiling experiments that compared secondary xylem to phloem and needles identified 360 xylem-preferential gene sequences. The functional annotations of all differentially expressed sequences were highly consistent with the results of similar analyses carried out in angiosperm trees and herbaceous plants. Computational analyses comparing the spruce microarray sequences and core xylem gene sets from Arabidopsis identified 31 transcripts that were highly conserved in angiosperms and gymnosperms, in terms of both sequence and xylem expression. Several other spruce sequences have not previously been linked to xylem differentiation (including genes encoding TUBBY-like domain proteins (TLPs) and a gibberellin insensitive (gai) gene sequence) or were shown to encode proteins of unknown function encompassing diverse conserved domains of unknown function.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".