MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410966643 · doi:10.1186/s12864-025-11585-y

Comprehensive genome-wide identification and expression analysis of the EPF/EPFL gene family in oat

2025· article· en· W4410966643 on OpenAlexaff
Lin Ma, Siyuan Guo, Xinyue Zhou, Zhipeng Zhang, Yanhong Cui, Jun Tang, Dengxia Yi, Xuemin Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Genomics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersAgricultural Science and Technology Innovation ProgramInner Mongolia Academy of Agricultural and Animal Husbandry Sciences
KeywordsBiologyGeneGeneticsGenomeGene familyGene expression profilingGene expressionExpressed sequence tagPhylogenetic treeAlternative splicingExon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epidermal pattern factor-like (EPF/EPFL) genes are a unique class of small, secreted peptides found in plants that play crucial roles in plant stress responses. A genome-wide analysis revealed 33 AsEPF/EPFL genes in oats (Avena sativa), with 28 containing the conserved EPF domain and 5 harbouring the stomagen domain. These proteins share 2-6 conserved motifs, reflecting functional modularity. The phylogenetic classification grouped these genes into five evolutionarily conserved clades containing both monocot and dicot homologues, indicating early divergence prior to monocot-dicot speciation. Expression profiling revealed distinct tissue-specific patterns: preferential expression in roots (12 genes), stems (6 genes), leaves (5 genes), and spikes (7 genes), with 3 genes showing dual peak expression in stems and leaves. Further analysis of gene expression under salt and drought stress revealed that AsEPF/EPFLs are induced by both types of stress, with different genes showing varying expression patterns under drought and salt stress. This study identified valuable candidate genes for high-yielding and stress-resistant oat breeding.

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 score0.404
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC GenomicsSame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207