Responses of pprI-transgenic Rape Seedlings to the ~(133)Cs or ~(88)Sr Stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The responses of pprI-transgenic and non-transgenic rape seedlings to the different133Cs and88Sr Single Stress were studied by pot experiments. Result showed that the uptake of133Cs or88Sr in rape seedlings increased with the increase of133Cs or88Sr concentration. The133Cs or88Sr contents of roots were more than that of the up-ground parts in transgenic and non-transgenic rape seedlings,and the88Sr content was higher than the133Cs content in the roots. But we found root uptake more133Cs or88Sr in transgenic rape than non-transgenic rape,and the133Cs or88Sr content of upground partsin transgenic rape was less than that in non-transgenic rape,which showed that the roots in transgenic rape more readily absorbed and fixed and transported133Cs or88Sr to the up-ground part than that in non-transgenic rape.With the increase of133Cs or88Sr concentration,the MDA content of transgenic and non-transgenic rape leaves were gradually increased,and the soluble protein content,POD and SOD activities were first rose and then declined,but the root activity decreased. Under the same treatment,the MDA content of transgenic rape was lower than that of nontransgenic rape,but the root activity,the content of soluble protein,POD and SOD activity of transgenic rape were higher than those of non-transgenic rape. Therefore,the above results indicated that pprI-transgenic rape has better ability to resist against133Cs or88Sr than non-transgenic rape. This study will provideces the theoretical and practical basis for further study the regulation mechanism of pprI gene and the gene response to133Cs or88Sr stress.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".