MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107786077 · doi:10.2144/05385rr01

Improved T-DNA vector for Tagging Plant Promoters via High-Throughput Luciferase Screening

2005· article· en· W2107786077 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Serge Remy, Els Thiry Bert coemans, Saskia Windelinckx, Rony Swennen, László Sági

Bibliographic record

VenueBioTechniques · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant tissue culture and regeneration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVector InstituteVlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie
KeywordsLuciferaseGeneReporter geneDNABiologyPromoterMolecular biologyPlasmidRecombinant DNAExpression vectorGeneticsGene expressionGenomeComputational biologyTransfection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transferred DNA (T-DNA) tagging is a powerful tool for tagging and in planta characterization of plant genes on a genome-wide scale. An improved promoter tagging vector is described here, which contains the codon-optimized luciferase (luc+) reporter gene 31 bp from the right border of the T-DNA. Compared to the wild-type luciferase gene, this construct provides significantly increased reporter gene expression and a 40 times higher tagging frequency. The utility of the construct is demonstrated in banana, a tropical monocot species, by screening embryogenic cell colonies and regenerated plants with an ultrasensitive charged-coupled device (CCD) camera. The improved vector resulted in a luciferase activation frequency of 2.5% in 19,000 cell colonies screened. Detailed molecular analysis of flanking DNA sequences in a tagged line revealed insertion of the luciferase tag in a novel gene with near-constitutive expression.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations27
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioTechniquesSame topicPlant tissue culture and regenerationFrench-language works237,207