Transcriptomic Analysis of Early Flowering Signals in ‘Royal’ Flax
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada is one of the world’s leading producers and exporters of flax seed, with most production occurring in the Prairie Provinces. However, reduced season length and risk of frost restricts production in the northern grain belt of the Canadian Prairies. To expand the growing region of flax and increase production in Canada, flax breeders need to develop earlier-flowering varieties capable of avoiding the risk of abiotic stress. A thorough understanding of flowering control of flax is essential for the efficient breeding of such lines. We identified 722 putative flax flowering genes that span all major flowering-time pathways. Frequently, we found multiple flax homologues for a single Arabidopsis flowering gene. We used RNA sequencing to quantify the expression of genes in the shoot apical meristem (SAM) at 10, 15, 19, and 29 days after planting (dap) using the ‘Royal’ cultivar. We observed the expression of 80% of putative flax flowering genes and the differential expression of only 30%; these included homologues of major flowering regulators, such as SOC1, FUL, and AP1. We also found enrichment of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in transcription factor (TF) families involved in flowering. Finally, we identified the candidates’ novel flowering genes amongst the uncharacterized flax genes. Our transcriptomic dataset provides a useful resource for investigating the regulatory control of the transition to flowering in flax and for the breeding of northern-adapted varieties.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".