Learning from methylomes: epigenomic correlates of <i>Populus balsamifera</i> traits based on deep learning models of natural DNA methylation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epigenomes have remarkable potential for the estimation of plant traits. This study tested the hypothesis that natural variation in DNA methylation can be used to estimate industrially important traits in a genetically diverse population of Populus balsamifera L. (balsam poplar) trees grown at two common garden sites. Statistical learning experiments enabled by deep learning models revealed that plant traits in novel genotypes can be modelled transparently using small numbers of methylated DNA predictors. Using this approach, tissue type, a nonheritable attribute, from which DNA methylomes were derived was assigned, and provenance, a purely heritable trait and an element of population structure, was determined. Significant proportions of phenotypic variance in quantitative wood traits, including total biomass (57.5%), wood density (40.9%), soluble lignin (25.3%) and cell wall carbohydrate (mannose: 44.8%) contents, were also explained from natural variation in DNA methylation. Modelling plant traits using DNA methylation can capture tissue-specific epigenetic mechanisms underlying plant phenotypes in natural environments. DNA methylation-based models offer new insight into natural epigenetic influence on plants and can be used as a strategy to validate the identity, provenance or quality of agroforestry products.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".