Gene Expression Activity and Pathway Selection for Sucrose Metabolism in Developing Storage Root of Sweet Potato
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Development of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) storage root coincides with starch accumulation made using cleaved products of imported photoassimilate sucrose. The genes and pathways are predominantly active for sucrose metabolism in developing storage root were unknown. In this study, we used both an expressed sequence tag (EST) approach and a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) approach to answer this question. Sucrose synthase (SuSy) was found to be significantly more frequent in storage root ESTs than in fibrous root ESTs. SuSy was the most abundant carbohydrate-metabolism gene in the storage-root ESTs. RT-PCR results confirmed this by showing that invertase was active in fibrous roots but rapidly decreased to an undetectable level during storage root development while SuSy became predominant. Invertase expression was also detectable in young immature storage root and shoot tips, suggesting an involvement in cell formation. SuSy expression pattern showed considerable similarity to that of ADP-glucose pyrophosphorylase, an essential enzyme for starch synthesis. The results indicated that (i). SuSy was the most actively expressed enzyme in sucrose metabolism in developing storage root and was correlated with sink strength, and (ii). whereas invertase was active at cell formation stages, SuSy pathway was predominant for sucrose cleavage related to starch-accumulation.
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".