Changes in phytohormone content and associated gene expression throughout the stages of pear (<i>Pyrus pyrifolia</i>Nakai) dormancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To elucidate the role of phytohormones during bud dormancy progression in the Japanese pear (Pyrus pyrifolia Nakai), we investigated changes in phytohormone levels of indole acetic acid (IAA), gibberellic acid (GA), abscisic acid (ABA) and trans-zeatin (tZ). Using ultra-performance liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry, we monitored phytohormone levels in the buds of field-grown and potted trees that were artificially heated to modify the timing of dormancy and flowering (spring flush) progression. We also analyzed the expression of GA- and ABA-metabolic genes during dormancy. Indole acetic acid and tZ levels were low during dormancy and increased toward the flowering stage. Gibberellic acid levels were maintained at relatively high concentrations during the dormancy induction stage, then decreased before slightly increasing prior to flowering. The low GA concentration in potted trees compared with field-grown trees indicated that GA functions in regulating tree vigor. Abscisic acid levels increased from the dormancy induction stage, peaked near endodormancy release and steadily decreased before increasing again before the flowering stage. The ABA peak levels did not always coincide with endodormancy release, but peak height correlated with flowering uniformity, suggesting that a decline in ABA concentration was not necessary for resumption of growth but the abundance of ABA might be associated with dormancy depth. From monitoring the expression of genes related to GA and ABA metabolism, we inferred that phytohormone metabolism changed significantly during dormancy, even though the levels of bioactive molecules were consistently low. Phytohormones regulate dormancy progression not only upon the reception of internal signals but also upon sensing ambient conditions.
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) | 0.000 | 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".