MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2162191812 · doi:10.5539/jas.v2n4p30

Molecular Characterization and Evolutionary Analysis of Alpha-gliadin Genes from Eremopyrum bonaepartis (Triticeae)

2010· article· en· W2162191812 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Guangrong Li, Tao Zhang, Yirong Ban

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsTriticeaeGliadinPseudogeneGeneBiologyGeneticsPhylogenetic treeGenomeAmino acidSequence analysisEpitopeExonBiochemistryAntigenGluten

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Total 16 ?-gliadin gene sequences ranged from 1186 to 1316bp were isolated from Eremopyrum bonaepartis byPCR based strategy. Analysis of deduced amino acid sequences indicated that 8 of 16 sequences displayed thetypical structure of ?-gliadin genes with six cysteine residues, while the other 8 sequences contained in-framestop codon, and were therefore pseudogenes. Phylogenetic analysis based on the variation of ?-gliadin genesequences indicated that the F genome of E. bonaepartis was apparently differed from the A, B and D genomesof wheat. Four peptides, Glia-?, Glia-?2, Glia-?9 and Glia-?20, which have been identified as T cell stimulatoryepitopes in celiac disease (CD) patients through binding to HLA-DQ2/8, were searched to the E. bonaepartis?-gliadin gene sequences. We firstly found that only Glia-? existed in 7 of 8 full sequences, the fact suggestingthat the occurrence of the stimulatory epitopes in ?-gliadin genes was newly evolved in wheat.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.212
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural Science→Same topicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology→French-language works237,207→