MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158282780 · doi:10.4141/cjps2012-193

Functional and evolutionary analysis of two CBF genes in <i>Prunus mume</i>

2013· article· en· W2158282780 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jie Zhang, Weiren Yang, Tangren Cheng, Hongying Pan, Q. X. Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Gene Expression Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrunusGenePhylogenetic treeGenBankBiologyGeneticsGene familyBotanyGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Zhang, J., Yang, W. R., Cheng, T. R., Pan, H. T. and Zhang, Q. X. 2013. Functional and evolutionary analysis of two CBF genes in Prunus mume . Can. J. Plant Sci. 93: 455–464. Primers based on the C-repeat (CRT)/dehydration responsive element (DRE) binding factor of peach (Prunus persica), sweet cherry (Prunus avim) and other related family member sequences found in GenBank were designed. Fragments of C-repeat binding factor (CBF) genes were isolated from Prunus mume by PCR and RT-PCR. The two CBF genes, designated PmCBFa and PmCBFb, were 821 bp and 741 bp long, encoding putative proteins of 238 and 225 amino acids, respectively, which contain all the conserved CBF protein domains. Similar to other CBF homologs, PmCBFa and PmCBFb may be constitutive and can be induced at a low temperature. Phylogenetic analysis using known CBF homologs indicated that all monocot CBF genes belong to the same group, separated from the eudicot CBF genes. The PmCBF genes are the homologs of the sweet cherry PaDREB gene. Sequencing of 16 cultivars and a wild species, ‘Zang’ Mei, characterized the intraspecific molecular evolution of the Prunus mume CBF genes, and the preliminary analysis indicates that the nucleotide diversity is low in coding area of PmCBFa.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicPlant Gene Expression AnalysisFrench-language works237,207