MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390665567 · doi:10.48130/opr-0024-0001

Progress in phylogenetics, multi-omics and flower coloration studies in <i>Rhododendron</i>

2024· article· en· W4390665567 on OpenAlexaff
Shuai Nie, Hai-Yao Ma, Tian‐Le Shi, Xue‐Chan Tian, Yousry A. El‐Kassaby, Ilga Porth, Fu‐Sheng Yang, Jian‐Feng Mao

Bibliographic record

VenueOrnamental Plant Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Gene Expression Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPhylogenetic treeEvolutionary biologyPhylogeneticsOrnamental plantLineage (genetic)Flowering plantGenomeGeneBotanyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The genus <italic>Rhododendron</italic> exhibits an immense diversity of flower colors and represents one of the largest groups of woody plants, which is of great importance for ornamental plant research. This review summarizes recent progress in deciphering the genetic basis for flower coloration in <italic>Rhododendron</italic>. We describe advances in phylogenetic reconstruction and genome sequencing of <italic>Rhododendron</italic> species. The metabolic pathways of flower color are outlined, focusing on key structural and regulatory genes involved in pigment synthesis. Gene duplications and losses associated with color diversification are discussed. In addition, the application of multi-omics approaches and analysis of gene co-expression networks to elucidate complex gene regulatory mechanisms is emphasized. This synthesis of current knowledge provides a foundation for future research on the evolution of flower color diversity within the <italic>Rhododendron</italic> lineage. Ultimately, these discoveries will support breeding endeavors aimed at harnessing the genetics of flower coloration and developing novel cultivars that exhibit the desired floral traits.

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)0.001
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 score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrnamental Plant ResearchSame topicPlant Gene Expression AnalysisFrench-language works237,207