MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399247323 · doi:10.1186/s13007-024-01200-8

A comprehensive review of in planta stable transformation strategies

2024· review· en· W4399247323 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Methods · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant tissue culture and regeneration
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityGrain Research Centre
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentre SèveMitacs
KeywordsCompendiumTransformation (genetics)BottleneckFood securityBiotechnologyComputer scienceProcess (computing)Genomic selectionBiologyAgricultureGeographyEcologyGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plant transformation remains a major bottleneck to the improvement of plant science, both on fundamental and practical levels. The recalcitrant nature of most commercial and minor crops to genetic transformation slows scientific progress for a large range of crops that are essential for food security on a global scale. Over the years, novel stable transformation strategies loosely grouped under the term "in planta" have been proposed and validated in a large number of model (e.g. Arabidopsis and rice), major (e.g. wheat and soybean) and minor (e.g. chickpea and lablab bean) species. The in planta approach is revolutionary as it is considered genotype-independent, technically simple (i.e. devoid of or with minimal tissue culture steps), affordable, and easy to implement in a broad range of experimental settings. In this article, we reviewed and categorized over 300 research articles, patents, theses, and videos demonstrating the applicability of different in planta transformation strategies in 105 different genera across 139 plant species. To support this review process, we propose a classification system for the in planta techniques based on five categories and a new nomenclature for more than 30 different in planta techniques. In complement to this, we clarified some grey areas regarding the in planta conceptual framework and provided insights regarding the past, current, and future scientific impacts of these techniques. To support the diffusion of this concept across the community, this review article will serve as an introductory point for an online compendium about in planta transformation strategies that will be available to all scientists. By expanding our knowledge about in planta transformation, we can find innovative approaches to unlock the full potential of plants, support the growth of scientific knowledge, and stimulate an equitable development of plant research in all countries and institutions.

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.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.337 · 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