MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379400222 · doi:10.5376/mpb.2023.14.0011

Identification and Expression Profiles of the WRKY Gene Family in Pecan (<i>Carya illinoinensis</i>)

2023· article· en· W4379400222 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Min Wang, Jinxiu Chen, Xiang Tai, Xiaowei Zhu, Cancan Zhu, Tianyue Bo

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Plant Breeding · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Gene Expression Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsWRKY protein domainBiologyGeneticsGeneGene familyGenomeTranscriptomeGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

WRKY gene family encodes a large transcription factor family that play critical roles in various physiological processes. However, a systematic analysis of the WRKY transcription factor family has not been reported in pecan ( Carya illinoinensis ). In this study, a total of 89 putative pecan  WRKY  genes ( CiWRKYs ), named  CiWRKY1-89 , were identified from the whole genome of pecan. Most of WRKY domain sequences in CiWRKY proteins were “WRKYGQK”, but there were “WRKYGKK” in CiWRKY19, CiWRKY27 and CiWRKY88, and “WKKYGQK” in CiWRKY85. All  CiWRKYs  were unevenly distributed on 16 chromosomes, the largest number of genes on chromosome 3. Based on phylogenetic analysis, the 89 putative  CiWRKYs  could be classified into three major groups. The  CiWRKY  genes shared similar exon-intron distribution, and conserved motifs within the same subgroups. Expression profiles indicated that  CiWRKY16 ,  CiWRKY30 ,  CiWRKY42 ,  CiWRKY62 , and  CiWRKY69  genes were involved in flower differentiation and development, and majority of  CiWRKYs  genes were differentially expressed during embryo development. The present study provides reference for further comparative genomics and functional studies of this important class of transcriptional regulators in pecan.

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)0.000
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Plant BreedingSame topicPlant Gene Expression AnalysisFrench-language works237,207