MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predicting the regenerative capacity of conifer somatic embryogenic cultures by metabolomics

2009· article· en· W2121203066 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Robinson, Rébecca Dauwe, Nicholas K. Ukrainetz, Ian F. Cullis, Rick White, Shawn D. Mansfield

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Biotechnology Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed Germination and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySomatic embryogenesisSomatic cellMetabolomicsRegeneration (biology)BotanyComputational biologyCell biologyEmbryoBioinformaticsGeneticsEmbryogenesisGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Somatic embryogenesis in gymnosperms is an effective approach to clonally propagating germplasm. However, embryogenic cultures frequently lose regenerative capacity. The interactions between metabolic composition, physiological state, genotype and embryogenic capacity in Pinus taeda (loblolly pine) somatic embryogenic cultures were explored using metabolomics. A stepwise modelling procedure, using the Bayesian information criterion, generated a 47 metabolite predictive model that could explain culture productivity. The model performed extremely well in cross-validation, achieving a correlation coefficient of 0.98 between actual and predicted mature embryo production. The metabolic composition and structure of the model implied that variation in culture regenerative capacity was closely linked to the physiological transition of cultures from the proliferation phase to the maturation phase of development. The propensity of cultures to advance into this transition appears to relate to nutrient uptake and allocation in vivo, and to be associated with the tolerance and response of cultures to stress, during the proliferation phase.

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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.216
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

Citations38
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant Biotechnology JournalSame topicSeed Germination and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207