Tomato Whole Genome Transcriptional Response to<i>Tetranychus urticae</i>Identifies Divergence of Spider Mite-Induced Responses Between Tomato and<i>Arabidopsis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae is one of the most significant mite pests in agriculture, feeding on more than 1,100 plant hosts, including model plants Arabidopsis thaliana and tomato, Solanum lycopersicum. Here, we describe timecourse tomato transcriptional responses to spider mite feeding and compare them with Arabidopsis in order to determine conserved and divergent defense responses to this pest. To refine the involvement of jasmonic acid (JA) in mite-induced responses and to improve tomato Gene Ontology annotations, we analyzed transcriptional changes in the tomato JA-signaling mutant defenseless1 (def-1) upon JA treatment and spider mite herbivory. Overlay of differentially expressed genes (DEG) identified in def-1 onto those from the timecourse experiment established that JA controls expression of the majority of genes differentially regulated by herbivory. Comparison of defense responses between tomato and Arabidopsis highlighted 96 orthologous genes (of 2,133 DEG) that were recruited for defense against spider mites in both species. These genes, involved in biosynthesis of JA, phenylpropanoids, flavonoids, and terpenoids, represent the conserved core of induced defenses. The remaining tomato DEG support the establishment of tomato-specific defenses, indicating profound divergence of spider mite-induced responses between tomato and Arabidopsis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".