Optimization and application of non-native Phragmites australis transcriptome assemblies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phragmites australis (common reed) has a cosmopolitan distribution and has been suggested as a model organism for the study of invasive plant species. In North America, the non-native subspecies (ssp. australis) is widely distributed across the contiguous 48 states in the United States and large parts of Canada. Even though millions of dollars are spent annually on Phragmites management, insufficient knowledge of P. australis impeded the efficiency of management. To solve this problem, transcriptomic information generated from multiple types of tissue could be a valuable resource for future studies. Here, we constructed forty-nine P. australis transcriptomes assemblies via different assembly tools and multiple parameter settings. The optimal transcriptome assembly for functional annotation and downstream analyses was selected among these transcriptome assemblies by comprehensive assessments. For a total of 422,589 transcripts assembled in this transcriptome assembly, 319,046 transcripts (75.5%) have at least one functional annotation. Within the transcriptome assembly, we further identified 1,495 transcripts showing tissue-specific expression pattern, 10,828 putative transcription factors, and 72,165 candidates for simple sequence repeats markers. The identification and analyses of predicted transcripts related to herbicide- and salinity-resistant genes were shown as two applications of the transcriptomic information to facilitate further research on P. australis. Transcriptome assembly and selection would be important for the transcriptome annotation. With this optimal transcriptome assembly and all relative information from downstream analyses, we have helped to establish foundations for future studies on the mechanisms underlying the invasiveness of non-native P. australis subspecies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".