MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898182858 · doi:10.1139/gen-2018-0106

Functional characterization of a reproductive tissue specific promoter from <i>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</i>

2018· article· en· W2898182858 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Boby Vattekkattu Unnikrishnan, Gurumurthy Demlapura Shankaranarayana

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Delhi
KeywordsBiologyGenePollenTransgeneGene expressionPromoterGenetically modified cropsGeneticsMolecular biologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SWEET proteins are essential for the maintenance of nectar production, as well as seed and pollen development, in plants. A search within the Eucalyptus genome identified 52 putative genes belonging to the SWEET gene family based on sequence similarity. The expression of two of these genes, EcSWEET2 and EcSWEET5, was analyzed in vegetative and reproductive tissues of Eucalyptus camaldulensis. The expression of EcSWEET5 was specific to male reproductive tissues, and transcripts were detected only at certain stages of flower development. Tobacco Rattle Virus (TRV)-mediated suppression of EcSWEET5 resulted in a significant reduction in pollen germination percentage in Nicotiana benthamiana without adverse effect on vegetative growth. A promoter sequence 1 kb upstream of the start codon of EcSWEET5 contained many elements suggestive of pollen specificity of the promoter. This specificity was confirmed in transgenic tobacco lines harboring a GUS gene whose expression was controlled by the EcSWEET5 gene promoter. GUS expression was limited to pollen alone in transgenic tobacco as evidenced by histochemical staining. The expression of a cytotoxic gene, barnase under the control of the EcSWEET5 gene promoter, showed pollen ablation in transgenic tobacco with normal vegetative growth.

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)0.000
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 score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207