Transcriptomic, Metabolomic, and Physiological Analyses Reveal That the Culture Temperatures Modulate the Cryotolerance and Embryogenicity of Developing Somatic Embryos in Picea glauca
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cryopreservation is one of the key technologies for the mass propagation of conifers via somatic embryogenesis. Cryotolerance and embryogenecity of conifer somatic embryos (SEs) could be affected by different temperature treatments, for which the underlying mechanisms were unknown. In this study, the developing SEs of Picea glauca obtained their cryotolerance with a survival rate of 100% when cultured on maturation medium at either 23°C for 4 weeks or 4°C for 10 weeks. However, only the embryos that underwent 4°C acclimation remained high embryogenicity, i.e., 91.7% based on cryovials or 29.3% on the plant tissue. Analysis of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) revealed that both 23 and 4°C treatments led to drastic changes in the gene expression, i.e., 21,621 and 14,906 genes, respectively, and the general increase in many oligosaccharides and flavonoids, in addition to the content change of proline (1.9- and 2.3-fold at 23 or 4°C) and gallic acid (6,963- and 22,053-fold). There were 249 significantly different metabolites between the samples of 23 and 4°C treatments and the changing trend of the sorbitol, fatty acids, and monosaccharides differed between these samples. During 4°C-acclimation, the metabolites of the arginine biosynthesis pathway increased between 2.4- and 8.1-fold, and the expression of antioxidant genes was up-regulated significantly. At 4°C, the up-regulated genes were for germ-like proteins, instead of seed storage proteins at 23°C. Concentrations of abscisic acid and jasmonic acid increased up to 2- and 1.5-fold, respectively, in the cold-acclimated embryos. After 10 weeks at 4°C, the embryos stayed at pre-cotyledonary stage with 17.1% less DNA methylation and fewer storage substances than those at 23°C for 4 weeks, which developed cotyledons. This research provides new insights into mechanisms underlying the response of SEs to different culture temperatures and benefits method development for germplasm conservation in conifers.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".