Silicon‐mediated resistance of <scp>A</scp> rabidopsis against powdery mildew involves mechanisms other than the salicylic acid ( <scp>SA</scp> )‐dependent defence pathway
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On absorption by plants, silicon (Si) offers protection against many fungal pathogens, including powdery mildews. The mechanisms by which Si exerts its prophylactic role remain enigmatic, although a prevailing hypothesis suggests that Si positively influences priming. Attempts to decipher Si properties have been limited to plants able to absorb Si, which excludes the model plant Arabidopsis because it lacks Si influx transporters. In this work, we were able to engineer Arabidopsis plants with an Si transporter from wheat (TaLsi1) and to exploit mutants (pad4 and sid2) deficient in salicylic acid (SA)-dependent defence responses to study their phenotypic response and changes in defence expression against Golovinomyces cichoracearum (Gc) following Si treatment. Our results showed that TaLsi1 plants contained significantly more Si and were significantly more resistant to Gc infection than control plants when treated with Si, the first such demonstration in a plant transformed with a heterologous Si transporter. The resistant plants accumulated higher levels of SA and expressed higher levels of transcripts encoding defence genes, thus suggesting a role for Si in the process. However, TaLsi1 pad4 and TaLsi1 sid2 plants were also more resistant to Gc than were pad4 and sid2 plants following Si treatment. Analysis of the resistant phenotypes revealed a significantly reduced production of SA and expression of defence genes comparable with susceptible controls. These results indicate that Si contributes to Arabidopsis defence priming following pathogen infection, but highlight that Si will confer protection even when priming is altered. We conclude that Si-mediated protection involves mechanisms other than SA-dependent defence responses.
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".