MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082019969 · doi:10.7717/peerj.9781

Genome-wide identification and expression analyses of R2R3-MYB transcription factor genes from two Orchid species

2020· article· en· W3082019969 on OpenAlexaff
Honghong Fan, Manli Cui, Ninghong Li, Xujuan Li, Yuxuan Liang, Lin Liu, Yongping Cai, Yi Lin

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Gene Expression Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGenomeGeneGeneticsMYBIdentification (biology)Transcription factorComputational biologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MYB transcription factors play important roles in different plant biological processes during plant growth, development and stress response. In this study, 101 ( DoMYB1-101 ) and 99 ( PaMYB1-99 ) R2R3-MYB genes were identified in the genomes of Dendrobium officinale and Phalaenopsis aphrodite , respectively. To classify the isolated candidate genes, the R2R3-MYB genes from A. thaliana were selected as references. As a result, all identified DoMYB and PaMYB genes were classified into 22 subfamilies. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that S21 had the largest number of members of all the subfamilies. The numbers of introns, exons and conserved sequences in all of the identified genes are different. In addition, 20 DoMYB genes from six subfamilies were selected for further analysis of tissue-specific expression and responses to various abiotic stresses treatments. The results showed that all of the DoMYB genes in S4 and S19 subfamilies exhibited the highest relative expression levels in flowers. And five DoMYB genes including DoMYB31 , DoMYB40 , DoMYB49, DoMYB52 and DoMYB54 , responded to the stress response. These results may provide useful information for further studies of the R2R3-MYB gene family.

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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicPlant Gene Expression AnalysisFrench-language works237,207