Association genetics of acetophenone defence against spruce budworm in mature white spruce
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Outbreaks of spruce budworm (SBW, Choristoneura fumiferana Clem.) cause major recurrent damage in boreal conifers such as white spruce (Picea glauca [Moench] Voss) and large losses of forest biomass in North America. Although defensive phenolic compounds have recently been linked to chemical resistance against SBW, their genetic basis remains poorly understood in forest trees, especially in conifers. Here, we used diverse association genetics approaches to discover genes and their variants that may control the accumulation of acetophenones, and dissect the genetic architecture of these defence compounds against SBW in white spruce mature trees. RESULTS: Out of 4747 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from 2312 genes genotyped in a population of 211 unrelated individuals, genetic association analyses identified 35 SNPs in 33 different genes that were significantly associated with the defence traits by using single-locus, multi-locus and multi-trait approaches. The multi-locus approach was particularly effective at detecting SNP-trait associations that explained a large fraction of the phenotypic variance (from 20 to 43%). Significant genes were regulatory including the NAC transcription factor, or they were involved in carbohydrate metabolism, falling into the binding, catalytic or transporter activity functional classes. Most of them were highly expressed in foliage. Weak positive phenotypic correlations were observed between defence and growth traits, indicating little or no evidence of defence-growth trade-offs. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides new insights on the genetic architecture of tree defence traits, contributing to our understanding of the physiology of resistance mechanisms to biotic factors and providing a basis for the genetic improvement of the constitutive defence of white spruce against SBW.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".