Phenological growth stages according to the BBCH-scale as a powerful tool for differentiating among CRISPR/Cas9 mutated lineages of the model plant <i>Setaria viridis</i> (L.) P. Beauv. (Poaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, Setaria viridis (L.) P. Beauv. has increased its popularity as a model plant for genetic studies with C4 monocotyledons. The BBCH-scale comprises a detailed phenotypic analysis, based on predefined growth stages, allowing for the construction of a comprehensive tool for morphological studies. We constructed a BBCH-scale for the ME034V wild-type accession and compared it with two independent mutants of the LONESOME HIGHWAY (LWH), which did not have noticeable morphological phenotypes. Our analysis showed that the main growth stages (0, 1, 2, and 7) showed homogeneity between the wild accession and the mutants. However, developmental changes between accessions were observable by comparing the secondaries of these main stages. There were significant differences between the wild accession and the mutants in relation to the main stages 4, 5, and 9. The total life cycle was reduced by 5 days in the svlhw-1 mutant. With a short life cycle like Setaria viridis, the observed changes can probably be attributed to genetic factors since the environmental conditions were strictly controlled. Thus, we showed that the BBCH-scale offers a powerful system to discriminate between Setaria viridis mutants that would otherwise be indistinguishable.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".