MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387165412 · doi:10.1111/tpj.16482

Deletions within intronic <scp>T‐DNA</scp> lead to reversion of <scp>T‐DNA</scp> mutant phenotypes

2023· article· en· W4387165412 on OpenAlexafffund
Karen Thulasi Devendrakumar, Madeleine Goldstein, James W. Kronstad, Xin Li

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Plant Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersKillam TrustsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMutantBiologyGeneticsDNAGeneReversionIntronMolecular biologyPhenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agrobacterium-mediated transformation enables random transfer-DNA (T-DNA) insertion into plant genomes. T-DNA insertion into a gene's exons, introns or untranscribed regions close to the start or stop codon can disrupt gene function. Such T-DNA mutants have been useful for reverse genetics analysis, especially in Arabidopsis thaliana. As T-DNAs are inserted into genomic DNA, they are generally believed to be stably inherited. Here, we report a phenomenon of reversion of intronic T-DNA mutant phenotypes. From a suppressor screen using intronic T-DNA pi4kβ1,2 double mutant, we recovered intragenic mutants of pi4kβ1, which suppressed the autoimmunity of the double mutant. These mutants carried deletions in the intronic T-DNAs, resulting in elevated transcription of normal PI4Kβ1. Such reversion of T-DNA insertional mutant phenotype stresses the need for caution when using intronic T-DNA mutants and reiterates the importance of using irreversible null mutant alleles in genetic analyses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Plant JournalSame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207