MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3030844737 · doi:10.1094/phyto-03-20-0080-ia

Regulation and Dynamics of Gene Expression During the Life Cycle of <i>Fusarium graminearum</i>

2020· article· en· W3030844737 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth K. Brauer, Rajagopal Subramaniam, Linda J. Harris

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytopathology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyFusariumGene expressionGeneTranscriptomeGene expression profilingRegulation of gene expressionGeneticsComputational biologyTranscription factorArabidopsisPlant biologyCell biologyBotanyMutant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fungal pathogens survive harsh environments and overcome physical, temporal, and chemical barriers to colonize their hosts and reproduce. Fusarium graminearum was one of the first fungal plant pathogens for which transcriptomic tools were developed, making analysis of gene expression a cornerstone approach in studying its biology. The analysis of gene expression in diverse in vitro conditions and during infection of different cereal crops has revealed subsets of both unique and shared transcriptionally regulated genes. Together with genetic studies, these approaches have enhanced our understanding of the development and infection cycle of this economically important pathogen. Here, we will outline recent advances in transcriptional profiling during sporogenesis, spore germination, vegetative growth, and host infection. Several transcriptional regulators have been identified as essential components in these responses and the role of select transcription factors will be highlighted. Finally, we describe some of the gaps in our understanding of F. graminearum biology and how expression analysis could help to address these gaps.

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 score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytopathologySame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207