Pigment comparison and expression of chlorophyll metabolism genes in yellow and green Acer palmatum leaves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exterior leaf color is an important trait for ornamental foliage plants but the molecular mechanism underlying the variation in color between yellow- and green-leaf Acer palmatum Thunb. ex Murray is poorly understood. Indeed, chlorophyll (Chl) contents and gene transcriptions were very different between the yellow mutant (YM) and green wild-type (GW) leaves of this species. Here, annual variations of leaf color and pigment contents in two varieties were investigated. Then, transcript levels of six genes involved in Chl metabolism were quantitatively measured using real-time polymerase chain reaction in YM and GW leaves. Compared with GW, the color changes of YM leaves were classified into four typical periods. During the yellow leaf stage, YM showed greatly reduced Chl synthesis and a higher ratio of carotenoid (Car) to Chl than GW. These phenomena may be the main cause of yellow leaves in YM. In addition, expression levels of Chl synthesis genes (ApPORA, ApPORB, ApCAO, and ApCHLG) in YM were very low during this period. Concomitantly, the amount of transcripts of genes for Chl degradation (ApCLH1 and ApCLH2) rose significantly compared with GW. Once YM leaves turned red, the above differences between the two genotypes lessened. Overall, our results indicated that changes in Chl synthesis and degradation may play important roles leading to the yellow leaves of YM A. palmatum.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".