MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3032195059 · doi:10.22215/etd/2019-13926

Secondary Metabolite Biosynthesis during Vegetative Incompatibility in Cryphonectria parasitica, Causal Agent of the American Chestnut Blight

2019· dissertation· en· W3032195059 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas E. Witte

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant and Fungal Interactions Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryphonectriaSecondary metaboliteBiologySecondary metabolismMating typeHeterokaryonChestnut blightTranscriptomeGeneMetaboliteBiosynthesisHyphaBiochemistryBotanyGene expressionFungus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vegetative Incompatibility (VI) can occur when filamentous fungi fuse during the asexual (mitotic) growth phase. In Cryphonectria parasitica, VI is modulated by six vic loci; hyphal fusion between strains that differ at one or more vic loci results in cell death. VI is considered an immune-like response that restricts heterokaryon formation and transmission of deleterious cytoplasmic elements through unknown mechanisms. A transcriptomic analysis of vic3associated incompatibility identified a set of differentially expressed genes within biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs). Using UPLC-HRMS, we detected significant shifts in secondary metabolite production during vic3 incompatibility. Among these metabolites, HPLC purification and NMR structure elucidation revealed that a new variant of calbistrin is linked to VIupregulated BGCs, as is a farnesyl-S-oxide analog resembling mating pheromones. Similarly, detection of putative lysophosphatidylcholines and other modified lipids implicates membrane alteration during VI. Together, these findings suggest VI involves synthesis of novel secondary metabolites and complex membrane-associated signaling.

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 score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlant and Fungal Interactions ResearchFrench-language works237,207