MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2174355238 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2012-0025

Potato <i>MYB</i> and <i>bHLH</i> transcription factors associated with anthocyanin intensity and common scab resistance

2013· article· en· W2174355238 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Helen H. Tai, Claudia Goyer, Agnes Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Gene Expression Analysis
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyMYBCommon scabAnthocyaninGeneTranscription factorGeneticsGene expressionRegulator geneLight intensityBotanyStreptomycesBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MYB and bHLH are large transcription factor families with largely uncharacterized biological functions. The patterns of expression of 42 MYB and 58 bHLH transcription factor genes were examined in potato clones that were demonstrated to have variation in anthocyanin intensity and common scab resistance to assess their possible involvement in regulating these traits. The control of expression of biosynthetic enzymes in regulation of anthocyanin intensity was also evaluated. The dihydroflavonol 4-reductase (DFR) gene, a key enzyme in the pathway, had the highest correlation with gene expression and anthocyanin intensity (quantified as levels of anthocyanidins). Expression of five uncharacterized MYB and three bHLH genes was also highly correlated with anthocyanin intensity, suggesting that they could be regulators of biosynthetic enzyme gene expression. The same potato clones were also demonstrated to have variation in resistance to Streptomyces scabiei, the causal pathogen of common scab in potato. Correlation analysis was used to show that anthocyanin intensity was not associated with common scab resistance. However, common scab resistance was correlated with expression of another two MYB and three bHLH genes, indicating that they might be involved in the regulation of the defense response of potato against the common scab pathogen.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.421
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Gene Expression AnalysisFrench-language works237,207