[go: up one dir, main page]

 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (3)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = MILc model

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
17 pages, 3633 KiB  
Article
Comparative Analysis of the Codon Usage Pattern in the Chloroplast Genomes of Gnetales Species
by Xiaoming Yang, Yuan Wang, Wenxuan Gong and Yinxiang Li
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25(19), 10622; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms251910622 - 2 Oct 2024
Viewed by 279
Abstract
Codon usage bias refers to the preferential use of synonymous codons, a widespread phenomenon found in bacteria, plants, and animals. Codon bias varies among species, families, and groups within kingdoms and between genes within an organism. Codon usage bias (CUB) analysis sheds light [...] Read more.
Codon usage bias refers to the preferential use of synonymous codons, a widespread phenomenon found in bacteria, plants, and animals. Codon bias varies among species, families, and groups within kingdoms and between genes within an organism. Codon usage bias (CUB) analysis sheds light on the evolutionary dynamics of various species and optimizes targeted gene expression in heterologous host plants. As a significant order of gymnosperms, species within Gnetales possess extremely high ecological and pharmaceutical values. However, comprehensive analyses of CUB within the chloroplast genomes of Gnetales species remain unexplored. A systematic analysis was conducted to elucidate the codon usage patterns in 13 diverse Gnetales species based on the chloroplast genomes. Our results revealed that chloroplast coding sequences (cp CDSs) in 13 Gnetales species display a marked preference for AT bases and A/T-ending codons. A total of 20 predominantly high-frequency codons and between 2 and 7 optimal codons were identified across these species. The findings from the ENC-plot, PR2-plot, and neutrality analyses suggested that both mutation pressure and natural selection exert influence on the codon bias in these 13 Gnetales species, with natural selection emerging as the predominant influence. Correspondence analysis (COA) demonstrated variation in the codon usage patterns among the Gnetales species and indicated mutation pressure is another factor that could impact CUB. Additionally, our research identified a positive correlation between the measure of idiosyncratic codon usage level of conservatism (MILC) and synonymous codon usage order (SCUO) values, indicative of CUB’s potential influence on gene expression. The comparative analysis concerning codon usage frequencies among the 13 Gnetales species and 4 model organisms revealed that Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Nicotiana tabacum were the optimal exogenous expression hosts. Furthermore, the cluster and phylogenetic analyses illustrated distinct patterns of differentiation, implying that codons, even with weak or neutral preferences, could affect the evolutionary trajectories of these species. Our results reveal the characteristics of codon usage patterns and contribute to an enhanced comprehension of evolutionary mechanisms in Gnetales species. Full article
(This article belongs to the Collection Feature Papers in Molecular Genetics and Genomics)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Distribution of nucleotide, overall GC content, GC1, GC2, and GC3 of cp CDSs in 13 Gnetales species.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The RSCU values of cp CDSs across 13 Gnetales species are visualized, with a color gradient ranging from green to pink denoting an ascending average RSCU value for the codons.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Neutrality plot of cp CDSs in different species to explore the relationship between GC12 and GC3. The black line represents the correlation line. The equation of the correlation line is shown at the bottom of the plot.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>ENC-plot analysis of cp CDSs in 13 Gnetales species. If the point is distant from the standard curve, this suggests that the CUB of cp CDSs was primarily influenced by natural selection.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>PR2-plot analysis of cp CDSs in 13 Gnetales species. GC bias and AT bias are on the abscissa axis and vertical axis, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Correspondence analysis of cp CDSs in 13 Gnetales species.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Phylogenetic and cluster analysis of 13 Gnetales species. (<b>A</b>) Phylogenetic analysis of chloroplast CDSs in the 13 Gnetales species. (<b>B</b>) Cluster analysis of RSCU values based on cp CDSs in the 13 Gnetales species. Different colors represent the family of different species, and the number on the node of each branch is the bootstrap value.</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 4456 KiB  
Article
Haiti Earthquake (Mw 7.2): Magnetospheric–Ionospheric–Lithospheric Coupling during and after the Main Shock on 14 August 2021
by Giulia D’Angelo, Mirko Piersanti, Roberto Battiston, Igor Bertello, Vincenzo Carbone, Antonio Cicone, Piero Diego, Emanuele Papini, Alexandra Parmentier, Piergiorgio Picozza, Christina Plainaki, Dario Recchiuti, Roberta Sparvoli and Pietro Ubertini
Remote Sens. 2022, 14(21), 5340; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14215340 - 25 Oct 2022
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 2053
Abstract
In the last few decades, the efforts of the scientific community to search earthquake signatures in the atmospheric, ionospheric and magnetospheric media have grown rapidly. The increasing amount of good quality data from both ground stations and satellites has allowed for the detections [...] Read more.
In the last few decades, the efforts of the scientific community to search earthquake signatures in the atmospheric, ionospheric and magnetospheric media have grown rapidly. The increasing amount of good quality data from both ground stations and satellites has allowed for the detections of anomalies with high statistical significance such as ionospheric plasma density perturbations and/or atmospheric temperature and pressure changes. However, the identification of a causal link between the observed anomalies and their possible seismic trigger has so far been prevented by difficulties in the identification of confounders (such as solar and atmospheric activity) and the lack of a global analytical lithospheric–atmospheric–magnetospheric model able to explain (and possibly forecast) any anomalous signal. In order to overcome these problems, we have performed a multi-instrument analysis of a low-latitude seismic event by using high-quality data from both ground bases and satellites and preserving their statistical significance. An earthquake (Mw = 7.2) occurred in the Caribbean region on 14 August 2021 under both solar quiet and fair weather conditions, thus proving an optimal case study to reconstruct the link between the lithosphere, atmosphere, ionosphere, and magnetosphere. The good match between the observations and novel magnetospheric–ionospheric–lithospheric coupling (M.I.L.C.) modeling of the event confirmed that the fault break generated an atmospheric gravity wave that was able to mechanically perturb the ionospheric plasma density, in turn triggering a variation in the magnetospheric field line resonance frequency. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Earthquake Ground Motion Observation and Modelling)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>USGS Community Internet Intensity Map (<a href="https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000f65h/executive" target="_blank">https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000f65h/executive</a> (accessed on 20 October 2022)). The black star highlights the earthquake epicenter.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Co-seismic vertical profiles of: (<b>a</b>) temperature; (<b>b</b>) background temperature; (<b>c</b>) temperature deviation; (<b>d</b>) square of the <span class="html-italic">Brunt–Väisälä</span> frequency; and (<b>e</b>) potential energy at 12:30 UT on 14 August 2021. Red horizontal dashed lines represent the identified AGW peaks; from bottom to top, the green horizontal dashed lines identify the tropopause and the stratopause peaks, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Horizontal distribution of the <span class="html-italic">E<sub>P</sub></span> on (<b>a</b>) 13 August and (<b>b</b>) 14 August 2021 at 12:30 UT. The location of the earthquake epicenter is marked by the black dot.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p><span class="html-italic">vTEC</span> fluctuations characterized by a period between 7 and 12 min for all of the satellites in the field of view of all available GNSS receivers near the EQ epicenter (black dot) recorded every 5 min between 12:35 UT and 13:20 UT on 14 August 2021.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The cross-phase dynamic spectrogram between two low-latitude ground stations near the earthquake epicenter.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Weather report maps (<a href="https://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/archives/web_pages/sfc/sfc_archive.php" target="_blank">https://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/archives/web_pages/sfc/sfc_archive.php</a> (accessed on 20 October 2022)) for the 14 August 2021 at 12:00 UT (panel <b>a</b>) and at 15:00 UT (panel <b>b</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Interplanetary space observations and geomagnetic response at low latitude on 14 August 2021. From top to bottom: Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) intensity (<b>a</b>), Bx, IMF component (<b>b</b>), By, IMF component (<b>c</b>), Bz, IMF component (<b>d</b>), solar wind (SW) velocity (<b>e</b>), SW temperature (<b>f</b>), SW dynamic pressure (<b>g</b>), and SYM-H index (<b>h</b>) variations. The red dashed line marks the time of the earthquake occurrence.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>MILC model previsions for the AGW detected on occasion of the Haitian EQ on 14 August 2021. Panel (<b>a</b>) shows the dispersion relation of the AGW frequency and wavelength predicted by the MILC model, in which the red dashed line represents the parameter <span class="html-italic">c</span><sub>0</sub>/2 h. Panel (<b>b</b>) shows the atmospheric temperature profile as observed by ERA-5; panel (<b>c</b>) shows the atmospheric temperature profile observed (blue line) vs. the predicted (red line); panel (<b>d</b>) shows the atmospheric potential energy density.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Comparison between the <span class="html-italic">vTEC</span> fluctuations as observed (blue line) and predicted (red line) by the MILC model for four different GNSS satellites. The black vertical dashed line represents the time of the EQ occurrence.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>The FLR variation expected for the 14 August 2021 Haitian EQ as predicted by the MILC model. <span class="html-italic">f</span>* represents the modelled magnetospheric field line eigenfrequency.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 9544 KiB  
Article
Near-Real-Time Flood Forecasting Based on Satellite Precipitation Products
by Nasreddine Belabid, Feng Zhao, Luca Brocca, Yanbo Huang and Yumin Tan
Remote Sens. 2019, 11(3), 252; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11030252 - 27 Jan 2019
Cited by 56 | Viewed by 7619
Abstract
Floods, storms and hurricanes are devastating for human life and agricultural cropland. Near-real-time (NRT) discharge estimation is crucial to avoid the damages from flood disasters. The key input for the discharge estimation is precipitation. Directly using the ground stations to measure precipitation is [...] Read more.
Floods, storms and hurricanes are devastating for human life and agricultural cropland. Near-real-time (NRT) discharge estimation is crucial to avoid the damages from flood disasters. The key input for the discharge estimation is precipitation. Directly using the ground stations to measure precipitation is not efficient, especially during a severe rainstorm, because precipitation varies even in the same region. This uncertainty might result in much less robust flood discharge estimation and forecasting models. The use of satellite precipitation products (SPPs) provides a larger area of coverage of rainstorms and a higher frequency of precipitation data compared to using the ground stations. In this paper, based on SPPs, a new NRT flood forecasting approach is proposed to reduce the time of the emergency response to flood disasters to minimize disaster damage. The proposed method allows us to forecast floods using a discharge hydrograph and to use the results to map flood extent by introducing SPPs into the rainfall–runoff model. In this study, we first evaluated the capacity of SPPs to estimate flood discharge and their accuracy in flood extent mapping. Two high temporal resolution SPPs were compared, integrated multi-satellite retrievals for global precipitation measurement (IMERG) and tropical rainfall measurement mission multi-satellite precipitation analysis (TMPA). The two products are evaluated over the Ottawa watershed in Canada during the period from 10 April 2017 to 10 May 2017. With TMPA, the results showed that the difference between the observed and modeled discharges was significant with a Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) of −0.9241 and an adapted NSE (ANSE) of −1.0048 under high flow conditions. The TMPA-based model did not reproduce the shape of the observed hydrographs. However, with IMERG, the difference between the observed and modeled discharges was improved with an NSE equal to 0.80387 and an ANSE of 0.82874. Also, the IMERG-based model could reproduce the shape of the observed hydrographs, mainly under high flow conditions. Since IMERG products provide better accuracy, they were used for flood extent mapping in this study. Flood mapping results showed that the error was mostly within one pixel compared with the observed flood benchmark data of the Ottawa River acquired by RadarSat-2 during the flood event. The newly developed flood forecasting approach based on SPPs offers a solution for flood disaster management for poorly or totally ungauged watersheds regarding precipitation measurement. These findings could be referred to by others for NRT flood forecasting research and applications. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Selected Papers from Agro-Geoinformatics 2018)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) Location of study area in the North America map, (<b>b</b>) Ottawa and Gatineau River extents before flood (9 May 2018), (<b>c</b>) Flood extent on the Ottawa and Gatineau Rivers in Ottawa, Canada (10 May 2018), recorded by the International Charter: Space and Major Disasters. Flood and river extents are produced by Natural Resources Canada (NRC) based on RadarSat-2 data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Selected study area: upper and central Ottawa watersheds.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Spatial resolution and footprint comparison between two satellite precipitation products: (<b>a</b>) tropical rainfall measurement mission multi-satellite precipitation analysis (TMPA) (0.25°) and (<b>b</b>) integrated multi-satellite retrievals for global precipitation measurement (IMERG) (0.1°).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Discharge hydrograph observed by the Britannia (02KF005) ground station from 01 April 2017 to 31 May 2017 located downstream of the Ottawa River. The red triangles represent control measurements of water depth, and the blue triangles represent control measurements of discharge.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Hydrological flood forecasting framework based on the MILc model and SPPs. MILc = Continuous Lumped Hydrological Model; SPPs = satellite precipitation products; Air T = air temperature; IUH = instantaneous unit hydrograph; Qobs = observed discharge and Qsim = simulated discharge. Flood extent mapping based on the Hydrological Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) model and forecasted discharge hydrographs from SSPs and RadarSat-2 imagery during the flood event is used for accuracy assessment and validation of the framework.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Hydrological forecasting framework using the MILc model adapted to SPPs. Notations in the Soil–Water Balance model (SWB): e(t) = evapotranspiration, f(t) = infiltration, s(t) = saturation excess, p(t) = precipitation, w(t) = wetness and w<sub>max</sub> = maximum wetness.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Comparison between the observed (Qobs) and the simulated (Qsim) discharge obtained by the MILc model based on satellite precipitation products after calibration for (<b>a</b>) IMERG and (<b>b</b>) TMPA precipitation data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Accuracy assessment between the simulated maps and the observed flood extent. (<b>a</b>), (<b>b</b>) and (<b>c</b>) are zooms showing upstream, middle and downstream of the Ottawa River, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8 Cont.
<p>Accuracy assessment between the simulated maps and the observed flood extent. (<b>a</b>), (<b>b</b>) and (<b>c</b>) are zooms showing upstream, middle and downstream of the Ottawa River, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8 Cont.
<p>Accuracy assessment between the simulated maps and the observed flood extent. (<b>a</b>), (<b>b</b>) and (<b>c</b>) are zooms showing upstream, middle and downstream of the Ottawa River, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>(<b>a</b>) Locations of topographical profiles in the study area. (<b>b</b>,<b>c</b>) Overlaying of simulation flood extents with the observed flood extent by RadarSat-2 during the Ottawa flood event.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Accuracy assessment of the simulated flood map using topographical profile across the Ottawa River. S IMERG = simulated IMERG.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop