MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2549217376 · doi:10.5376/bt.2014.05.0002

Development of Insect-resistant Transgenic Rice with <i>cry1Ac1</i> Gene

2014· article· en· W2549217376 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bai Jianjiang, Lee Gangseob

Bibliographic record

VenueBt Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetically modified riceTransgeneInsectBiologyGeneGeneticsGenetically modified cropsBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present study, the transgenic rice “Xiushui 134” with cry1Ac1 was developed by Agrobacterium mediated transformation method. Confirmed by PCR, all the 12 independent transformants were cry1Ac1 -positive plants. Using semi-quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR), the cry1Ac1 gene expression could be detected in all independent transformants. Using real time quantitative PCR (qPCR) analysis, we found that 3 out of 12 transformants harbored a single copy cry1Ac1 gene. In order to study the integration site, the flanking sequences of these three transformants were amplified by thermal asymmetric interlaced (TAIL)-PCR. The result showed that the T-DNA of one of them inserted into genes interspace on the rice chromosome 2, about 2.4 kb upstream from the Os02G0539500 (Ch.2: 20858661~20860159) gene, and did not disturb other rice functional genes. This trans- formant was used as primary material to self-cross and segregate, and finally we got the homozygous cry1Ac1 lines. The resistance to leaf folder and agronomic traits of the lines were tested in field at natural conditions. The results showed that the homozygous cry1Ac1 rice plants had strong resistance to leaf folder while main agronomic traits were almost unaffected. These results indicate that we have successfully developed homozygous cry1Ac1 lines with highly resistant to leaf folder but main agronomic traits almost the same as controls.

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)0.001
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 score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBt ResearchSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207