Expressed Sequence Tag Analysis of Lilium longiflorum Generative Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The generative cell, the male gametic cell progenitor in flowering plants, undergoes mitotic division to produce two sperm cells. We have examined the gene expression profile of the Lilium longiflorum (lily) generative cell by sequencing expressed sequence tags (ESTs). A total of 886 ESTs derived from the generative cell cDNA library were clustered into 637 unique ESTs comprising 123 cluster ESTs and 514 singleton ESTs. Thirty-nine percent of non-redundant ESTs showing similarity to Arabidopsis genes with known function were thus assigned putative functions. Genes related to the ubiquitin system were abundant, suggesting the key role of ubiquitin-dependent proteolysis in gametogenesis. A total of 168 and 129 non-redundant lily generative cell ESTs showed significant similarity to maize sperm cell ESTs and Arabidopsis male gametophyte-specific transcripts, respectively. Fifty-five ESTs appeared to have significant similarities to both maize sperm cell ESTs and Arabidopsis male gametophyte-specific genes, indicating conservation of male gamete-expressed genes across different plant genera. Thus our data provide a handle to identify Arabidopsis gamete-expressed genes and to investigate their function. Several of these genes are potential candidates for analyzing the molecular basis of fertilization and for investigating mechanisms of gamete-specific transcriptional regulation in Arabidopsis through bioinformatics-based approaches.
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) | 0.000 | 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".