Histological, chemical and gene expression differences between western redcedar seedlings resistant and susceptible to cedar leaf blight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Western redcedar ( Thuja plicata ) is an important species in the Cupressaceae both at economic and cultural levels in the Pacific Northwest of North America. In adult trees, the species produces one of the most weathering-resistant heartwoods among conifers, making it one of the preferred species for outdoor applications. However, young T. plicata plants are susceptible to infection with cedar leaf blight ( Didymascella thujina ), an important foliar pathogen that can be devastating in nurseries and small-spaced plantations. Despite that, variability in the resistance against D. thujina in T. plicata has been documented, and such variability can be used to breed T. plicata for resistance against the pathogen. Objective This investigation aimed to discern the phenotypic and gene expression differences between resistant and susceptible T. plicata seedlings to shed light on the potential constitutive resistance mechanisms against cedar leaf blight in western redcedar. Methods The study consisted of two parts. First, the histological differences between four resistant and four susceptible families that were never infected with the pathogen were investigated. And second, the differences between one resistant and one susceptible family that were infected and not infected with the pathogen were analyzed at the chemical (C, N, mineral nutrients, lignin, fiber, starch, and terpenes) and gene expression (RNA-Seq) levels. Results The histological part showed that T. plicata seedlings resistant to D. thujina had constitutively thicker cuticles and lower stomatal densities than susceptible plants. The chemical analyses revealed that, regardless of their infection status, resistant plants had higher foliar concentrations of sabinene and α-thujene, and higher levels of expression of transcripts that code for leucine-rich repeat receptor-like protein kinases and for bark storage proteins. Conclusion The data collected in this study shows that constitutive differences at the phenotypic (histological and chemical) and gene expression level exist between T. plicata seedlings susceptible and resistant to D. thujina . Such differences have potential use for marker-assisted selection and breeding for resistance against cedar leaf blight in western redcedar in the future.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".