Evolution of ANT family and regulation of lint percentage by the GhAIL6-GhTPL1 module
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: L.), despite upland cotton's global importance as a major source of renewable textile fibers. Elucidating the mechanism of ANT/AILs in cotton fiber development is crucial for the breeding of high-yield cotton. Methods: Using phylogenetic trees explored the evolution of the ANT family. Using RNA sequencing data analyzed the expression of ANT/AILs in different cotton tissues. Using yeast two-hybrid (Y2H), dual-luciferase complementation assay (LUC) and bimolecular fluorescence complementation (BiFC) explored the interaction protein with GhAIL6. Using CRISPR-cas9 technology explored the regulation of GhAIL6-GhTPL1 module. Results: The ANT family originated in Bryophytes. A rapid expansion of ANT members occurred in the common ancestor of angiosperms, with the total number remaining stable in both Monocots and Eudicots. Cotton contained 20 ANT genes, as a duplication event in its ancestors led to expansion of AIL6/AIL7. Editing of GhAIL6 and GhTPL1 in upland cotton demonstrated AIL6-TPL1 module to regulate seed index (SI) and lint percentage (LP). Y2H, LUC and BiFC supported the interaction between GhAIL6 and GhTPL1. Discussion: Overall, this study offered a novel insight into the evolutionary dynamics of ANT family members and length. Edited cotton lines of GhAIL6 and GhTPL1, LP was significantly higher than in the control group, and SI significantly lower than in the control group. This study provided a new GhAIL6-GhTPL1 module for high-yield cotton 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".