MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765546001 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2017-0097

The hooded mutant of <i>Lathyrus odoratus</i> (Fabaceae) is associated with a <i>cycloidea</i> gene mutation

2017· article· en· W2765546001 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Christine Marie Woollacott, Quentin Cronk

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPetalBiologyMutantLathyrusGeneticsMutationMendelian inheritanceGenePhenotypeAlleleBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hooded (hdd) floral mutant of Lathyrus odoratus L. (sweet pea) has a concave standard petal compared with the flat standard petal of the wild type. This trait was used by Bateson, Punnett, and Saunders in early studies of Mendelian inheritance (c.1905). Here we provide four lines of evidence that this phenotype results from a mutation in the CYCLOIDEA2 (CYC2) gene. (i) CYC2 is expressed in the standard petals of wild-type L. odoratus, whereas the same methods fail to detect expression in hdd plants. (ii) Genomic sequencing reveals that the CYC2 gene sequence of hdd plants is truncated at the TCP box and likely nonfunctional. (iii) In a population of 118 plants, the hdd phenotype cosegregated with the mutant allele of CYC2 without exception. (iv) CYC2 is known to act as a dorsal petal identity gene. Consistent with this, the standard petal in hdd flowers has the epidermal and pigment characteristics of wing petals, indicating that the hdd mutation results in a shift in dorsiventral petal-type identity. We conclude that the mutation in CYC2 is responsible for the hdd phenotype, and is therefore the L. odoratus equivalent of the lobed standard (lst1) mutant in Pisum.

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)0.001
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207