MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208114187

Long non-coding RNAs Profiling of Qingke Barley in Tibet under the Condition of Blumeria graminis Infection

2020· article· en· W3208114187 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lingling Wei, Yulin Wang, Hongjun Yuan, Mu Wang, Xingquan Zeng

Bibliographic record

VenueTriticeae Genomics and Genetics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlumeria graminisPowdery mildewBiologyGeneGeneticsPlant disease resistanceCell biologyBotany
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Powdery mildew, known as  one of the most devastating diseases in cereal crops, causes serious losses in grain yield and quality. In order to clarify the pathogenic molecular mechanism of qingke barley to powdery mildew, In the present study, the DEGs expression patterns of Tibetan barley (also called qingke) cultivars G7 (showed complete penetration resistance to powdery mildew) and Z13 (showed complete penetration sensitivity to powdery mildew) were compared after inoculation with  Blumeria graminis  f. sp.  Hordei  ( Bgh ). The genes coding for calcium-dependent protein kinase, glutathione S-transferase, plasminogen activator inhibitor 1, serine-type endopeptidase, and MADS-box transcription factor were expressed at higher levels in the G7, indicating their possible roles in the resistance to  Bgh . The highly expressed genes in G7 take a part in the biological processes including ion channels, calcium-dependent protein kinase, and plant hormone pathway. Sixteen lncRNAs and their 21 candidate target genes were identified to exhibit coordinated expression patterns, which were enriched in plant hormone signal transduction and ion binding processes. This study casts an insight into the molecular mechanisms to control powdery mildew in barley and relative species.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTriticeae Genomics and GeneticsSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207