<i>CYCLOIDEA</i>-like genes control floral symmetry, floral orientation, and nectar guide patterning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Actinomorphic flowers usually orient vertically (relative to the horizon) and possess symmetric nectar guides, while zygomorphic flowers often face horizontally and have asymmetric nectar guides, indicating that floral symmetry, floral orientation, and nectar guide patterning are correlated. The origin of floral zygomorphy is dependent on the dorsoventrally asymmetric expression of CYCLOIDEA (CYC)-like genes. However, how horizontal orientation and asymmetric nectar guides are achieved remains poorly understood. Here, we selected Chirita pumila (Gesneriaceae) as a model plant to explore the molecular bases for these traits. By analyzing gene expression patterns, protein-DNA and protein-protein interactions, and encoded protein functions, we identified multiple roles and functional divergence of 2 CYC-like genes, i.e. CpCYC1 and CpCYC2, in controlling floral symmetry, floral orientation, and nectar guide patterning. CpCYC1 positively regulates its own expression, whereas CpCYC2 does not regulate itself. In addition, CpCYC2 upregulates CpCYC1, while CpCYC1 downregulates CpCYC2. This asymmetric auto-regulation and cross-regulation mechanism might explain the high expression levels of only 1 of these genes. We show that CpCYC1 and CpCYC2 determine asymmetric nectar guide formation, likely by directly repressing the flavonoid synthesis-related gene CpF3'5'H. We further suggest that CYC-like genes play multiple conserved roles in Gesneriaceae. These findings shed light on the repeated origins of zygomorphic flowers in angiosperms.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".