MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410451626 · doi:10.5376/pgt.2024.15.0026

Breeding Kiwifruit for Enhanced Stress Tolerance: Advances and Challenges

2024· article· en· W4410451626 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
X. Lv, Wenfang Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Gene and Trait · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStress (linguistics)Biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kiwifruit ( Actinidia  spp.) is a valuable fruit crop that faces significant challenges due to various environmental stresses, including drought, salinity, heat, cold, and waterlogging. Recent advances in molecular breeding and functional genomics have identified several key genes and regulatory mechanisms that enhance stress tolerance in kiwifruit. For instance, the R1R2R3-MYB transcription factor AcMYB3R has been shown to improve drought and salinity tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis plants by upregulating stress-responsive genes. Similarly, the heat shock transcription factor (Hsf) gene family has been implicated in high-temperature tolerance, with specific Hsf genes like AcHsfA2a  playing crucial roles. Salt stress tolerance has been linked to various physiological and biochemical adaptations, including increased proline content and enhanced antioxidant enzyme activities. Waterlogging tolerance mechanisms involve complex metabolic and transcriptional responses, as demonstrated by the superior performance of certain kiwifruit genotypes and rootstocks under waterlogged conditions. Additionally, melatonin application has been found to mitigate heat stress by promoting antioxidant pathways. These findings provide a comprehensive understanding of the genetic and molecular bases of stress tolerance in kiwifruit, offering valuable insights for breeding programs aimed at developing more resilient cultivars.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant Gene and TraitSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207