Conifers Concentrate Large Numbers of NLR Immune Receptor Genes on One Chromosome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nucleotide-binding domain and leucine-rich repeat (NLR) immune receptor genes form a major line of defense in plants, acting in both pathogen recognition and resistance machinery activation. NLRs are reported to form large gene clusters in limber pine (Pinus flexilis), but it is unknown how widespread this genomic architecture may be among the extant species of conifers (Pinophyta). We used comparative genomic analyses to assess patterns in the abundance, diversity, and genomic distribution of NLR genes. Chromosome-level whole genome assemblies and high-density linkage maps in the Pinaceae, Cupressaceae, Taxaceae, and other gymnosperms were scanned for NLR genes using existing and customized pipelines. The discovered genes were mapped across chromosomes and linkage groups and analyzed phylogenetically for evolutionary history. Conifer genomes are characterized by dense clusters of NLR genes, highly localized on one chromosome. These clusters are rich in TNL-encoding genes, which seem to have formed through multiple tandem duplication events. In contrast to angiosperms and nonconiferous gymnosperms, genomic clustering of NLR genes is ubiquitous in conifers. NLR-dense genomic regions are likely to influence a large part of the plant's resistance, informing our understanding of adaptation to biotic stress and the development of genetic resources through breeding.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".