Evaluation of Differentially Expressed Genes in Leaves vs. Roots Subjected to Drought Stress in Flax (Linum usitatissimum L.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drought stress is a common environmental challenge that plants face, severely constraining plant growth and reducing crop yield and quality. Several studies have highlighted distinct responses between monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous plants. However, the mechanisms underlying flax tolerance to abiotic stress, such as drought, remain unclear. In this study, we investigated the morphological, physiological, and biochemical characteristics and the genome-wide gene expression of oil flax and fiber flax in response to drought stress. The results revealed that drought stress caused significant wilting of flax leaves. Within the first 24 h of stress, various physiological and biochemical characteristics exhibited rapid responses. These included fresh weight, relative water content (RWC), proline, soluble protein, soluble sugar, superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase (POD), and catalase (CAT) in the leaves or roots of flax. Additionally, drought stress led to a significant rise in lignin content in fiber flax. In addition, the transcriptome analysis demonstrated genome-wide variations in gene expression induced by drought stress. Specifically, genes associated with photosynthesis, proline biosynthesis, and phytohormone metabolism exhibited significant differences in expression levels under stress conditions in flax. These findings highlight the rapid response of flax to drought stress within a short-term period. Our experiment also revealed that, although there were variations in the levels of small compound content or gene expression between Longya10 and Fany under drought stress, most stress-resistance responses were similar. Furthermore, the results provide additional evidence supporting the existence of mechanisms underlying the response to drought stress in plants.
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".