Decreased number of locules and pericarp cell layers underlie smaller and ovoid fruit in tomato <i>smaller fruit</i> (<i>sf</i>) mutant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fruit size and shape are the primary criteria for domestication and improvement of tomato. The varying sizes and shapes of tomato fruit further signify their importance as agronomic traits. Here, we characterized a tomato mutant, smaller fruit (sf), which bears relatively small and ovoid fruits compared with the large and flat fruits of the wild-type (WT). Phenotypic measurements and histological analyses revealed that fruit diameter but not fruit length of the sf mutant decreased compared with that of the WT. This phenotypic change was attributed to significant decreases in locule number and pericarp cell layers in a transverse direction, which resulted in the transition of fruit shape from flat in the WT to ovoid in sf. Comparison of the transcriptomes of ovaries of sf with the WT using RNA-Seq identified 2596 differentially expressed genes, in which 1737 genes significantly were up-regulated and 859 genes were dramatically down-regulated in the sf ovary. Further analyses confirmed that some genes, such as CRCa, CNRs, CYCs, WUS, SUNs, OFRs, CDKs, participate in regulation of fruit size and shape of sf mutant. Thus, our study adds a new genetic resource regarding fruit size and shape of tomato, and provides a valuable basis for understanding molecular regulation of small and ovoid fruit of the sf mutant.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".