MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3170143627 · doi:10.1139/cjps-2020-0268

Origin of black glume color in <i>Triticum aestivum</i> lines with introgressions from wheat wild relatives

2021· article· en· W3170143627 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Анастасія Наваліхіна, George Fedak, Maksym Аntonyuk, Tamara Ternovska

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Gene Expression Analysis
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlumeBiologyIntrogressionGeneCommon wheatGeneticsBotanyChromosome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dark glume color in Triticinae is a much-studied morphological character. However, pigments that cause the color, the molecular basis of their biosynthesis, and mechanisms of its regulation are still unknown. Dark glume is a common trait in Triticum aestivum lines with alien introgressions. To elucidate the molecular basis of this character, we analyzed the total phenolic content (TPC) in the dark glumed introgression lines (ILs) and their parents. TPC in the dark ILs was found to be higher than their parents and light-glumed lines. All the genotypes were screened for the expression of eight genes encoding the flavonoid biosynthesis pathway enzymes. Expression of three flavonoid genes in the pathway was changed in the introgression lines as compared with their parents. The expression of F3′H and FNS was absent in the lines with introgressions from Aegilops spp. The expression of three genes, F3′H, FLS, and FNS, was found to be altered in the light glumed lines with introgressions from Amblyopyrum muticum. No expression of F3′H was detected in the T. aestivum/Am. muticum lines with light and dark plants, and the other genes of the pathway were found to be expressed at the parental levels. No correlation between the expression profiles and the phenotype was found in the T. aestivum/Am. muticum lines indicating other undetected changes in these lines.

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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.239
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicPlant Gene Expression AnalysisFrench-language works237,207