Elemental profiling and genomewide association studies reveal genomic variants modulating ionomic composition in Populus trichocarpa leaves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Samples were collected from a population of 1,089 black cottonwood genotypes (P. trichocarpa) assembled from native stands to encompass the central portion of the natural range of the species, stretching from 38.8° to 54.3° N Q13 latitude from California, USA, to British Columbia, Canada. Establishment of the common garden, growth conditions, and site maintenance have been described by Muchero et al (2015). In this study, leaf samples for ionomic profiling were collected from 4-year-old trees, during the growing season, in July 2012, from a field located in Clatskanie, Oregon, USA (46°6′11″N 123°12′13″W). The field site was located in a protected alluvial floodplain containing a uniform Wauna-Locoda silt loam soil area characterized by an acidic pH, in Columbia County, Oregon. A subset of 584 out of the 1,089 P. trichocarpa genotypes were represented in this sampling. These genotypes were randomly selected to represent the geographical distribution of the population. A single fully mature (LPI 7-9) leaf on the south side of the tree exposed to full sunlight conditions was removed from the tree within a 6-hour window centering on solar noon and immediately frozen under dry ice before processing. Leaf samples of 584 P. trichocarpa genotypes were finely ground to 40 mm particle size using a mortar and pestle, and ionomic composition was analyzed using ICP-MS. In total, 20 elements were profiled, including aluminum (Al27), arsenic (As75), boron (B11), cadmium (Cd111), calcium (Ca43), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), iron (Fe57), magnesium (Mg25), manganese (Mn55), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni60), phosphorus (P31), potassium (K39), rubidium (Rb85), selenium (Se82), sodium (Na23), strontium (Sr88), sulfur (S34), and zinc (Zn66), following a protocol established by Ziegler et al. (2013). For each sample, 75mg of powder was digested overnight in 2.5 mL HNO3 containing 20 parts per billion (ppb) indium as an internal standard, following the protocol described in Ziegler et al. (2013). Following a dilution, concentration of the 20 elements was measured using an Elan 6000 DRC-e mass spectrometer (Perkin-Elmer SCIEX) connected to a PFA microflow nebulizer (Elemental Scientific) and Apex HF desolvator (Elemental Scientific). One measurement per sample per genotype was done. For subsequent analyses, the quantifications were converted to total element concentration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".