Assessment of Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab expression endotoxins in transgenic cotton across growth periods and stages under semi-controlled conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transgenic cotton has brought about a significant transformation in the management of bollworms. Nevertheless, a considerable challenge has emerged in the form of Pectinophora gossypiellafor transgenic cotton. In current study, the detection and quantification of Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab protein in pot samples of different transgenic cotton cultivars encompassing single (Cry1Ac) and double gene (Cry2Ab) cultivars was conducted, employing bt strips and ELISA methods at three distinct time points, namely 40 days, 80 days, and 120 days after sowing, coinciding with different growth phases (i.e., leaves, squares, bolls, and seeds). The outcomes revealed that the highest toxin levels of Cry1Ac protein were present across all cultivars, whereas elevated levels of Cry2Ab protein were exclusively observed in MNH-1045 cultivar ranged from 0.05 ug/g to 1.46 ug/g. The findings highlighted visible differences in the concentrations of Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab proteins among all cultivars. The Cry1Ac concentrations ranged from 0.12 ug/g to 0.81 ug/g, 0.18 ug/g to 0.69 ug/g, 0.19 ug/g to 0.38 ug/g after 40 days, 80 days, and 120 days respectively, and ranged from 0.22 ug/g to 0.59 ug/g, 0.20 ug/g to 0.36 ug/g, 0.00 ug/g to 0.05 ug/g and 0.22 ug/g to 0.30 ug/g, in leaf, square, boll, and seed stage respectively. The concentration of Cry2Ab protein ranged from 0.04 to 1.46, 0.02 to 1.128, 0.01 to 0.28ug/g after 40 days, 80 days, and 120 days respectively, and ranged from 0.4 ug/g to 1.45 ug/g, 0.01 ug/g to 0.63 ug/g, 0.00 ug/g to 0.05 ug/g and 0.00 ug/g to 0.62 ug/g, in leaf, square, boll, and seed stage respectively. It was detected that the expression of toxins is depending upon the developmental stage of the crop and the duration of growth. This study's findings will aid entomologists and plant breeders in developing high-toxin cotton cultivars (especially expressing high at the boll stage) and strategies for global cotton production sustainability, such as refuge maintenance or hybrid development, to protect transgenic cotton from pink bollworm infestations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".