How to Build a Fruit: Transcriptomics of a Novel Fruit Type in the Brassiceae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparative gene expression studies are invaluable for predicting how existing genetic pathways may be modified or redeployed to produce novel and variable phenotypes. Fruits are ecologically important organs because of their impact on plant fitness and seed dispersal, modifications in which results in morphological variation across species. A novel fruit type in the Brassicaceae known as heteroarthrocarpy enables distinct dispersal methods in a single fruit through segmentation via a lateral joint and variable dehiscence at maturity. Given the close relationship to Arabidopsis, species that exhibit heteroarthrocarpy are powerful models to elucidate how differences in gene expression of a fruit patterning pathway may result in novel fruit types. Transcriptomes of distal, joint, and proximal regions from Erucaria erucarioides and Cakile lanceolata were analyzed to elucidate within and between species differences in whole transcriptome, gene ontology, and fruit patterning expression profiles. Whole transcriptome expression profiles vary between fruit regions in patterns that are consistent with fruit anatomy. These transcriptomic variances do not correlate with changes in gene ontology, as they remain generally stable within and between both species. Upstream regulators in the fruit patterning pathway, FILAMENTOUS FLOWER and YABBY3, are expressed in the distal and proximal regions of E. erucarioides, but not in the joint, implicating alterations in the pathway in heteroarthrocarpic fruits. Downstream gene, INDEHISCENT, is significantly upregulated in the abscissing joint region of C. lanceolata, which suggests repurposing of valve margin genes for novel joint disarticulation in an otherwise indehiscent fruit. In summary, these data are consistent with modifications in fruit patterning genes producing heteroarthrocarpic fruits through different components of the pathway relative to other indehiscent, non-heteroarthrocarpic, species within the family. Our understanding of fruit development in Arabidopsis is now extended to atypical siliques within the Brassicaceae, facilitating future studies on seed shattering in important Brassicaceous crops and pernicious weeds.
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 | 0.001 | 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".