MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rice <i>Indeterminate 1</i> (<i>OsId1</i>) is necessary for the expression of <i>Ehd1</i> (<i>Early heading date 1</i>) regardless of photoperiod

2008· article· en· W2104277363 on OpenAlexaff
Soon Ju Park, Song Lim Kim, Shin-Young Lee, Byoung Il Je, Hai Long Piao, Sung Han Park, Chul Min Kim, Choong‐Hwan Ryu, Su Hyun Park, Joseph Colasanti, Gynheung An, Chang‐deok Han

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Plant Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersGyeongsang National University
KeywordsOryza sativaBiologyMeristemphotoperiodismGeneMutantGeneticsHeading (navigation)Locus (genetics)OryzaBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indeterminate 1 (Id1), a classical flowering gene first reported in 1946, is one of the earliest genes whose expression in leaf tissues affects the floral transition in the shoot meristem. How Id1 is integrated into the flowering process is largely unknown. In this study, we examined the genetic action of the rice (Oryza sativa) ortholog OsId1. In rice, OsId1 is preferentially expressed in young leaves, but the overall expression pattern is broader than that in maize (Zea mays). OsId1 is able to activate transcription in yeast. RNAi mutants show a delay in flowering under both short-day (SD) and long-day (LD) conditions. OsId1 regulates the expression of Ehd1 (Early heading date 1) and its downstream genes, including Hd3a (a rice ortholog of FT) and RFT1 (Rice Flowering Locus T1), under both SD and LD conditions. In rice, the expression of Ehd1 is also controlled by the photoperiodic flowering genes OsGI (a rice ortholog of GI) and OsMADS51. However, the expression of OsId1 is independent of OsGI, OsMADS51, and OsMADS50 (a rice SOC1 ortholog). This study demonstrates that the activation of Ehd1 by OsId1 is required for the promotion of flowering.

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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations163
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Plant JournalSame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207