MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117779598 · doi:10.3389/fpls.2013.00061

A systemic increase in the recombination frequency upon local infection of Arabidopsis thaliana plants with oilseed rape mosaic virus depends on plant age, the initial inoculum concentration and the time for virus replication

2013· article· en· W2117779598 on OpenAlexafffund
Youli Yao, Palak Kathiria, Igor Kovalchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Plant Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsArabidopsis thalianaBiologyVirusArabidopsisRecombinationPlant virusVirologyBotanyGeneGeneticsMutant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past, we showed that local infection of tobacco leaves with either tobacco mosaic virus or oilseed rape mosaic virus (ORMV) resulted in a systemic increase in the homologous recombination frequency (HRF). Later on, we showed that a similar phenomenon occurs in Arabidopsis thaliana plants infected with ORMV. Here, we tested whether the time of removing the infected leaves as well as viral titer have any effect on the degree of changes in HRF in systemic tissues. An increase in HRF in systemic non-infected tissues was more pronounced when the infected leaves were detached from the infected plants at 60-96 h post-infection, rather than at earlier time. Next, we found that exposure to higher concentrations of inoculum was much more efficient in triggering an increase in HRF than exposure to lower concentrations. Finally, we showed that older plants exhibited a higher increase in HRF than younger plants. We found that an increase in genome instability in systemic tissues of locally infected plants depends on plant age, the concentration of initial inoculums and the time of viral replication.

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)0.002
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 score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Plant ScienceSame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207