MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410861869 · doi:10.1093/treephys/tpaf065

<i>Populus</i> salicinoids: a thriving subfield in the omics era

2025· review· en· W4410861869 on OpenAlexaff
Noah J Kaufman, Jamie You, Brian G. Fox, Shawn D. Mansfield

Bibliographic record

VenueTree Physiology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySalicaceaeAbiotic componentAbiotic stressHerbivoreEcologyBotanyWoody plantGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Members of the salicaceous genus Populus are primarily used by plant biologists as a model system for understanding the genetic underpinnings of woody plant growth and development. Beyond their importance to those conducting developmental research, Populus spp. are key members of ecosystems in the Northern Hemisphere and show promise as a vital renewable source of biomass for sustainable biofuel production. This genus also produces a class of signature herbivore-deterring and medicinally significant phenolic glycosides, commonly referred to as salicinoids. Although salicinoids in Populus are primarily associated with defense against biotic disturbances, they have also been implicated in structuring the chemotaxonomy of Populus and Salicaceae, shaping endophytic microbiomes, directing abiotic stress responses and participating in primary metabolism. Despite advancements in understanding these interactions through functional genomics and biotechnological techniques such as CRISPR/Cas9, much about their function and biosynthesis still remains obfuscated. Here, we summarize a global view of progress made in Populus salicinoid research, focusing particularly on studies conducted through a biotechnological lens, to elucidate the distribution, ecological significance, and biosynthesis of these compounds.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTree PhysiologySame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207