The Transcriptional Landscape of Polyploid Wheats and Their Diploid Ancestors during Embryogenesis and Grain Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How gene expression during embryogenesis and grain development in wheats has been shaped by the differing contributions of diploid genomes through hybridization, polyploidization, and breeding selection is not well understood. This study describes the global landscape of gene activities during wheat embryogenesis and grain development. Using comprehensive transcriptomic analyses of two wheat cultivars and three diploid grasses, we investigated gene expression at seven stages of embryo development, two endosperm stages, and one pericarp stage. We identified transcriptional signatures and developmental similarities and differences among the five species, revealing the evolutionary divergence of gene expression programs and the contributions of A, B, and D subgenomes to grain development in polyploid wheats. The characterization of embryonic transcriptional programming in hexaploid wheat, tetraploid wheat, and diploid grass species provides insight into the landscape of gene expression in modern wheat and its ancestral species. This study presents a framework for understanding the evolution of domesticated wheat and the selective pressures placed on grain production, with important implications for future performance and yield improvements.plantcell;31/12/2888/FX1F1fx1.
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".