MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2466979535 · doi:10.1139/gen-2016-0015

Identification and analysis of copine/BONZAI proteins among evolutionarily diverse plant species

2016· article· en· W2466979535 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Baohong Zou, Xuexue Hong, Yuan Ding, Xiang Wang, He Liu, Jian Hua

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPhylogeneticsPhylogenetic treeArabidopsisArabidopsis thalianaGenomeGeneFunctional divergenceGeneticsBotanyEvolutionary biologyGene familyMutant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Copines are evolutionarily conserved calcium-dependent membrane-binding proteins with potentially critical biological functions. In plants, the function of these proteins has not been analyzed except for in Arabidopsis thaliana where they play critical roles in development and disease resistance. To facilitate functional studies of copine proteins in crop plants, genome-wide identification, curation, and phylogeny analysis of copines in 16 selected plant species were conducted. All the identified 32 plant copines have conserved features of the two C2 domains (C2A and C2B) and the von Willebrand factor A (vWA) domain. Different from animal and protozoa copines, plant copines have glycine at the second residue potentially acquiring a unique protein myristoylation modification. Phylogenetic analysis suggests that copine was present as one copy when evolving from green algae to basal flowering plants, and duplicated before the divergence of monocots and dicots. In addition, gene expression and protein localization study of rice copines suggests both conserved and different properties of copines in dicots and monocots. This study will contribute to uncovering the role of copine genes in different plant species.

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 score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations23
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207