Transcriptional and temporal response of <i>Populus</i> stems to gravi‐stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plants modify development in response to external stimuli, to produce new growth that is appropriate for environmental conditions. For example, gravi-stimulation of leaning branches in angiosperm trees results in modifications of wood development, to produce tension wood that pulls leaning stems upright. Here, we use gravi-stimulation and tension wood response to dissect the temporal changes in gene expression underlying wood formation in Populus stems. Using time-series analysis of seven time points over a 14-d experiment, we identified 8,919 genes that were differentially expressed between tension wood (upper) and opposite wood (lower) sides of leaning stems. Clustering of differentially expressed genes showed four major transcriptional responses, including gene clusters whose transcript levels were associated with two types of tissue-specific impulse responses that peaked at about 24-48 h, and gene clusters with sustained changes in transcript levels that persisted until the end of the 14-d experiment. Functional enrichment analysis of those clusters suggests they reflect temporal changes in pathways associated with hormone regulation, protein localization, cell wall biosynthesis and epigenetic processes. Time-series analysis of gene expression is an underutilized approach for dissecting complex developmental responses in plants, and can reveal gene clusters and mechanisms influencing development.
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) | 0.001 | 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".