Multi-dimensional leaf phenotypes reflect root system genotype in grafted grapevine over the growing season
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Modern biological approaches generate volumes of multi-dimensional data, offering unprecedented opportunities to address biological questions previously beyond reach owing to small or subtle effects. A fundamental question in plant biology is the extent to which below-ground activity in the root system influences above-ground phenotypes expressed in the shoot system. Grafting, an ancient horticultural practice that fuses the root system of one individual (the rootstock) with the shoot system of a second, genetically distinct individual (the scion), is a powerful experimental system to understand below-ground effects on above-ground phenotypes. Previous studies on grafted grapevines have detected rootstock influence on scion phenotypes including physiology and berry chemistry. However, the extent of the rootstock's influence on leaves, the photosynthetic engines of the vine, and how those effects change over the course of a growing season, are still largely unknown. RESULTS: Here, we investigate associations between rootstock genotype and shoot system phenotypes using 5 multi-dimensional leaf phenotyping modalities measured in a common grafted scion: ionomics, metabolomics, transcriptomics, morphometrics, and physiology. Rootstock influence is ubiquitous but subtle across modalities, with the strongest signature of rootstock observed in the leaf ionome. Moreover, we find that the extent of rootstock influence on scion phenotypes and patterns of phenomic covariation are highly dynamic across the season. CONCLUSIONS: These findings substantially expand previously identified patterns to demonstrate that rootstock influence on scion phenotypes is complex and dynamic and underscore that broad understanding necessitates volumes of multi-dimensional data previously unmet.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".