A Multi-Year, Multi-Cultivar Approach to Differential Expression Analysis of High- and Low-Protein Soybean (Glycine max)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) is among the most valuable crops based on its nutritious seed protein and oil. Protein quality, evaluated as the ratio of glycinin (11S) to β-conglycinin (7S), can play a role in food and feed quality. To help uncover the underlying differences between high and low protein soybean varieties, we performed differential expression analysis on high and low total protein soybean varieties and high and low 11S soybean varieties grown in four locations across Eastern and Western Canada over three years (2018–2020). Simultaneously, ten individual differential expression datasets for high vs. low total protein soybeans and ten individual differential expression datasets for high vs. low 11S soybeans were assessed, for a total of 20 datasets. The top 15 most upregulated and the 15 most downregulated genes were extracted from each differential expression dataset and cross-examination was conducted to create shortlists of the most consistently differentially expressed genes. Shortlisted genes were assessed for gene ontology to gain a global appreciation of the commonly differentially expressed genes. Genes with roles in the lipid metabolic pathway and carbohydrate metabolic pathway were differentially expressed in high total protein and high 11S soybeans in comparison to their low total protein and low 11S counterparts. Expression differences were consistent between East and West locations with the exception of one, Glyma.03G054100. These data are important for uncovering the genes and biological pathways responsible for the difference in seed protein between high and low total protein or 11S cultivars.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".