MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2439137807 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2016.06.003

Dataset of protein changes induced by cold acclimation in red clover (Trifolium pratense L.) populations recurrently selected for improved freezing tolerance

2016· article· en· W2439137807 on OpenAlexafffund
Marie Bipfubusa, Solen Rocher, Annick Bertrand, Yves Castonguay, Jenny Renaut

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAustralian Government
KeywordsRed CloverProteomeFreezing toleranceBiologyBotanyAcclimatizationProteomicsCultivarHorticultureBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The data provide an overview of proteomic changes in red clover (Trifolium pratense L.) in response to cold acclimation and recurrent selection for superior freezing tolerance. Proteins were extracted from crowns of two red clover cultivars grown under non-acclimated or cold-acclimated conditions, and plants obtained from the initial genetic background (TF0) and from populations obtained after three (TF3) and four cycles (TF4) of recurrent selection for superior freezing tolerance. Proteins were analyzed using a two-dimensional fluorescence difference gel electrophoresis (2D-DIGE) coupled to mass spectroscopy (MS and MS/MS). Differentially regulated proteins were subsequently identified using MALDI TOF/TOF analysis. The data are related to a recently published research article describing proteome composition changes associated with freezing tolerance in red clover, "A proteome analysis of freezing tolerance in red clover (Trifolium pratense L.)" (Bertrand et al., 2016 [1]). They are available in the ProteomeXchange Consortium database via the PRIDE partner repository under the dataset identifier PRIDE: PXD003689.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in BriefSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207