MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392190944 · doi:10.3389/fpls.2024.1308059

Sex- versus apomixis-specific polymorphisms in the 5′UTR of APOLLO from Boechera shift gene expression from somatic to reproductive tissues in Arabidopsis

2024· article· en· W4392190944 on OpenAlexafffund
Maryam Honari, Joanne R. Ashnest, Timothy F. Sharbel

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Plant Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsGlobal Institute for Water SecurityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsApomixisBiologyGeneticsGeneAlleleArabidopsisPloidyMutant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Among candidate genes underlying the control components of apomixis, APOLLO is known for its strong linkage to apomeiosis in the genus Boechera . The gene has “apo alleles,” which are characterized by a set of linked apomixis-specific polymorphisms, and “sex alleles.” All apomictic Boechera genotypes are heterozygous for the apo/sex alleles, whereas all sexual genotypes are homozygous for sex alleles. Methods In this study, native and synthetic APOLLO promoters were characterized by detecting the expression level of the β-glucuronidase (GUS) gene in Arabidopsis . Results Comparing various flower developmental stages in transgenic lines containing different constructs with 2-kb native transgenic lines revealed that changes to the APOLLO promoter causes shifts in tissue and developmental stage specificity of GUS expression. Importantly, several apomixis-specific polymorphisms in the 5′UTR change the timing and location of GUS activity from somatic to reproductive tissues. Discussion These synthetic data simulate a plausible evolutionary process, whereby apomixis-specific gene activity can be achieved.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Plant ScienceSame topicPlant Taxonomy and PhylogeneticsFrench-language works237,207