MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114943005 · doi:10.1128/aem.01604-14

Influence of Populus Genotype on Gene Expression by the Wood Decay Fungus Phanerochaete chrysosporium

2014· article· en· W2114943005 on OpenAlexaff
Jill Gaskell, Amber J. Marty, Michael D. Mozuch, Philip J. Kersten, Sandra Splinter BonDurant, Grzegorz Sabat, Ali Azarpira, John Ralph, Oleksandr Skyba, Shawn D. Mansfield, Robert A. Blanchette, Dan Cullen

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied and Environmental Microbiology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhanerochaeteChrysosporiumBiologyLigninGeneclone (Java method)FungusGene expressionBotanyGenotypeMicrobiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined gene expression patterns in the lignin-degrading fungus Phanerochaete chrysosporium when it colonizes hybrid poplar (Populus alba × tremula) and syringyl (S)-rich transgenic derivatives. A combination of microarrays and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) allowed detection of a total of 9,959 transcripts and 793 proteins. Comparisons of P. chrysosporium transcript abundance in medium containing poplar or glucose as a sole carbon source showed 113 regulated genes, 11 of which were significantly higher (>2-fold, P < 0.05) in transgenic line 64 relative to the parental line. Possibly related to the very large amounts of syringyl (S) units in this transgenic tree (94 mol% S), several oxidoreductases were among the upregulated genes. Peptides corresponding to a total of 18 oxidoreductases were identified in medium consisting of biomass from line 64 or 82 (85 mol% S) but not in the parental clone (65 mol% S). These results demonstrate that P. chrysosporium gene expression patterns are substantially influenced by lignin composition.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.151
Teacher spread0.148 · 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

Citations33
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied and Environmental MicrobiologySame topicBiofuel production and bioconversionFrench-language works237,207