MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281619941 · doi:10.3390/f13060873

Identification and Comparative Analysis of Conserved and Species-Specific microRNAs in Four Populus Sections

2022· article· en· W4281619941 on OpenAlexaff
Yong-Li Qi, Liang‐Jiao Xue, Yousry A. El‐Kassaby, Ying Guo

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBiologymicroRNAGeneticsGeneNucleotide diversitySingle-nucleotide polymorphismPopulus trichocarpaAdaptation (eye)Evolutionary biologyPopulus euphraticaGenetic diversityIdentification (biology)Computational biologyGenomeHaplotypeBotanyAlleleGenotypePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The conservation and diversity of microRNA (miRNA) families provide insights into the evolution of miRNA genes. However, there are few studies to explore the miRNA genes at the genus level in plants. Here, we identified 1194 miRNA loci in four Populus species P. deltoides, P. euphratica, P. tremula, and P. trichocarpa from Aigeiros, Turanga, Populus, and Tacamahaca sections, respectively, by combining de novo and homolog-based approaches. Our results indicated that a similar number of miRNA loci exist in each species (296–301 miRNA loci). Among the identified 143 miRNA families, 68 families are shared by the studied four species, and 31 families are species-specific, which might be related to local adaptation. Additionally, multiple miRNA-related single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were found, indicating that polymorphisms in pre-miRNA hairpins were likely to affect miRNA biogenesis. This study expanded the breadth and depth of miRNA annotations and provided valuable resources for further exploring the diversity and function of poplar miRNAs.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.428
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207