Back

Characterization of the conserved response of angiosperms to hypoxia through transcriptomic meta-analysis

Cabanac, S.;Mathé, C.;Dunand, C.

2026-06-15 Plant Biology
10.64898/2026.06.14.732220 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Floods cause significant crop losses worldwide. Plant response mechanisms to flooding have been extensively studied, particularly the ethylene-meditated mechanisms of perception and initiation of the response. However, other mechanisms are often studied more marginally, and it is difficult to determine which are species-specific and which are part of a conserved angiosperm response to hypoxia. Here, we performed a meta-analysis of transcriptomic data under hypoxic or flooding conditions across 11 angiosperm species and identified 259 homologous gene clusters that constitute the core response to hypoxia in angiosperms. These include the previously identified main mechanisms linked to ethylene, as well as numerous novel genes whose role in the hypoxia response is often poorly characterized. In particular, many previously overlooked genes associated with oxidative stress were identified as part of the core response, such as HRU1, TIP1-2, OZF1, and OZF2. Our results reveal many new candidate genes with strong potential for improving plant resilience to flooding.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
19.2%
Similar papers in this journal
2
BMC Plant Biology
○ 57 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.2%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Frontiers in Plant Science
○ 256 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.5%
Similar papers in this journal
4
BMC Genomics
○ 406 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
6.5%
Similar papers in this journal
5
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 26%
5.7%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Physiologia Plantarum
○ 39 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.5%
50% of probability mass above
7
Journal of Experimental Botany
◐ 219 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.5%
8
The Plant Journal
○ 215 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
9
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
○ 494 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.6%
10
Plant Physiology
◐ 238 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
11
Plant, Cell & Environment
○ 78 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
12
Plant Science
○ 31 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
13
Tree Physiology
◐ 24 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.6%
14
New Phytologist
○ 346 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
15
Plant and Cell Physiology
◐ 52 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
16
Plants
○ 43 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
17
Antioxidants
○ 25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
18
Plant Molecular Biology
○ 20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
19
Scientific Data
○ 209 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
20
iScience
○ 1154 papers in training set
Top 31%
1.0%
21
Annals of Botany
◐ 50 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
22
Life
○ 29 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
23
Plant Direct
○ 95 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
24
Plant Physiology and Biochemistry
○ 20 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
25
Communications Biology
○ 993 papers in training set
Top 28%
0.9%
26
BMC Bioinformatics
○ 457 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
27
Biology Open
● 156 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
28
Plant Cell Reports
○ 17 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
29
Heliyon
○ 152 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.6%
30
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 58%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.