MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313175301 · doi:10.5376/mpb.2022.13.0027

Transcriptome Sequencing Analysis of Flowering Related Genes in <i>Prunus sibirica</i>

2022· article· en· W4313175301 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chen Chen, Wanyu Xu, Gaopu Zhu, Zhao Han, Huimin Liu, Lin Wang, Tana Wuyun

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Plant Breeding · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscriptomeBiologyKEGGPhenylpropanoidGeneMetabolic pathwayGeneticsGene expressionBiosynthesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to explore the molecular mechanism of regulating flowering in Prunus sibirica , the transcriptome of flower buds at two different stages was sequenced to investigate the candidate genes involved in the flowering. A total of 42.04 Gb clean data were obtained, and more than 92.00% of the clean reads were mapped to the reference genome. A total of 6 850 significantly differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were found, including 2 784 significantly up-regulated and 4 066 significantly down regulated genes. We further found 392 and 346 DEGs were special in sprouting stage and full-bloom stage, respectively. KEGG enrichment analysis showed that the first three DEGs were enriched in plant hormone signal transduction, phenylpropanoid biosynthesis, and starch and sucrose metabolism, respectively. Among these DEGs, 39 genes involved in the flowering regulation pathways were obtained, including 10, 17, 5, 1, and 2 genes in vernalization pathway, photoperiod pathway, autonomous pathway, gibberellin pathway, and temperature pathway, respectively. In addition, four integrators, including SOC1 , FT , and LFY , were also identified. This study will provide the valuable information for studying the candidate genes involved in the flowering and for breeding in  P. sibirica .

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.199 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Plant BreedingSame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207