The combination of DNA methylation and positive regulation of anthocyanin biosynthesis by MYB and bHLH transcription factors contributes to the petal blotch formation in Xibei tree peony
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Xibei tree peony is a distinctive cultivar group that features red–purple blotches in petals. Interestingly, the pigmentations of blotches and non-blotches are largely independent of one another. The underlying molecular mechanism had attracted lots of attention from investigators, but was still uncertain. Our present work demonstrates the factors that are closely related to blotch formation in Paeonia rockii ‘Shu Sheng Peng Mo’. Non-blotch pigmentation is prevented by the silencing of anthocyanin structural genes, among which PrF3H, PrDFR, and PrANS are the three major genes. We characterized two R2R3-MYBs as the key transcription factors that control the early and late anthocyanin biosynthetic pathways. PrMYBa1, which belongs to MYB subgroup 7 (SG7) was found to activate the early biosynthetic gene (EBG) PrF3H by interacting with SG5 member PrMYBa2 to form an ‘MM’ complex. The SG6 member PrMYBa3 interacts with two SG5 (IIIf) bHLHs to synergistically activate the late biosynthetic genes (LBGs) PrDFR and PrANS, which is essential for anthocyanin accumulation in petal blotches. The comparison of methylation levels of the PrANS and PrF3H promoters between blotch and non-blotch indicated a correlation between hypermethylation and gene silencing. The methylation dynamics of PrANS promoter during flower development revealed a potential early demethylating reaction, which may have contributed to the particular expression of PrANS solely in the blotch area. We suggest that the formation of petal blotch may be highly associated with the cooperation of transcriptional activation and DNA methylation of structural gene promoters.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".