Functional Characterization of Nine Norway Spruce <i>TPS</i> Genes and Evolution of Gymnosperm Terpene Synthases of the <i>TPS-d</i> Subfamily
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Constitutive and induced terpenoids are important defense compounds for many plants against potential herbivores and pathogens. In Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst), treatment with methyl jasmonate induces complex chemical and biochemical terpenoid defense responses associated with traumatic resin duct development in stems and volatile terpenoid emissions in needles. The cloning of (+)-3-carene synthase was the first step in characterizing this system at the molecular genetic level. Here we report the isolation and functional characterization of nine additional terpene synthase (TPS) cDNAs from Norway spruce. These cDNAs encode four monoterpene synthases, myrcene synthase, (-)-limonene synthase, (-)-alpha/beta-pinene synthase, and (-)-linalool synthase; three sesquiterpene synthases, longifolene synthase, E,E-alpha-farnesene synthase, and E-alpha-bisabolene synthase; and two diterpene synthases, isopimara-7,15-diene synthase and levopimaradiene/abietadiene synthase, each with a unique product profile. To our knowledge, genes encoding isopimara-7,15-diene synthase and longifolene synthase have not been previously described, and this linalool synthase is the first described from a gymnosperm. These functionally diverse TPS account for much of the structural diversity of constitutive and methyl jasmonate-induced terpenoids in foliage, xylem, bark, and volatile emissions from needles of Norway spruce. Phylogenetic analyses based on the inclusion of these TPS into the TPS-d subfamily revealed that functional specialization of conifer TPS occurred before speciation of Pinaceae. Furthermore, based on TPS enclaves created by distinct branching patterns, the TPS-d subfamily is divided into three groups according to sequence similarities and functional assessment. Similarities of TPS evolution in angiosperms and modeling of TPS protein structures are discussed.
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".