The commitment of barley microspores into embryogenesis correlates with miRNA‐directed regulation of members of the SPL, GRF and HD‐ZIPIII transcription factor families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Microspore embryogenesis is a model for developmental plasticity and cell fate decisions. To investigate the role of miRNAs in this development, we sequenced sRNAs and the degradome of barley microspores collected prior to (day 0) and after (days 2 and 5) the application of a stress treatment known to induce embryogenesis. Microspores isolated at these timepoints were uniform in both appearance and in their complements of sRNAs. We detected 68 miRNAs in microspores. The abundance of 51 of these miRNAs differed significantly during microspore development. One group of miRNAs was induced when the stress treatment was applied, prior to being repressed when microspores transitioned to embryogenesis. Another group of miRNAs were up‐regulated in day‐2 microspores and their abundance remained stable or increased in day‐5 microspores, a timepoint at which the first clear indications of the transition toward embryogenesis were visible. Collectively, these miRNAs might play a role in the modulation of the stress response, the repression of gametic development, and/or the gain of embryogenic potential. A degradome analysis allowed us to validate the role of miRNAs in regulating 41 specific transcripts. We showed that the transition of microspores toward the embryogenesis pathway involves miRNA‐directed regulation of members of the ARF , SPL , GRF, and HD‐ZIPIII transcription factor families. We noted that 41.5% of these targets were shared between day‐2 and day‐5 microspores while 26.8% were unique to day‐5 microspores. The former set may act to disrupt transcripts involved in pollen development while the latter set may drive the commitment to embryogenesis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".